UC-NRLF 


SB    57    17fc, 


The  Separation  of  the  Methodists 
from  the  Church  of  England 


BY 
ROBERT    LEONARD   TUCKER,  M.A. 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE 

REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


Printed  for  the  Author  by 

THE    METHODIST    BOOK  CONCERN 

New  York  City 
1918 


TSr 


Copyright,  1918,  by 

R.  L.   TUCKER 

All  Rights  Reserved 


TO 

MY  WIFE 
GRACE    GREEN    TUCKER 

MY    MOTHER 
FANNIE    ALLUM    TUCKER 

MY   FATHER 
JOHN   TUCKER 

THREE  METHODISTS  WHOSE  LIVES  SHOW  THAT  NOBLEST 
SPIRIT  OF  TRUE  RELIGION  FAR  MORE  CLEARLY 
THAN  ALL  MY  WORDS,  THIS  TASK  IS  DEDICATED 


T 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PREFACE  7 

INTRODUCTION    9 

CHAPTER  I.    THE  METHODIST  VIEW  OF  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY  LIFE n 

I.     Methodist  Dissatisfaction  with  the  Customs  and  Religion  of 

the  Times   1 1 

II.     Methodist  View  of  the  Church  and  the  Clergy 12 

CHAPTER  II.    THE  CHURCHMAN'S  VIEW  OF  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY  LIFE.  .  17 

I.     Enthusiasm     17 

II.    The  Church  View  of  Enthusiasm 23 

III.  Methodist  Attempts  to  Check  Extreme  Enthusiasm 30 

IV.  Methodism    and    Mysticism 34 

CHAPTER  III.     METHODIST  DOCTRINE 37 

I.    Original    Sin    37 

II.    Justification    by    Faith 39 

III.  The  New   Birth 42 

IV.  Christian    Perfection    48 

V.     The  Witness  of  the  Spirit 53 

VI.     The  Early  Methodist  Doctrine  of  the  Church 55 

VII.    The  Orthodoxy  of  Early  Methodist  Doctrine 57 

CHAPTER  IV.     PRACTICES  OF  THE  EARLY  METHODISTS 62 

I.    Early    Field    Preaching 63 

II.     Early  Irregular  Indoor  Preaching 70 

III.  The  Beginning  of  the  Itineracy 71 

IV.  The  Use  of  Lay  Preachers 74 

V.     The  First  Methodist  Ordinations 83 

CHAPTER  V.    THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  EARLY  METHODIST  ORGANIZATION 96 

I.     Methodist    Societies 96 

II.    The  Beginning  of  the  Methodist  Conferences 104 

III.  Methodist  Classes,  Bands,  Stewards,  Quarterly  Meetings in 

IV.  The    Methodist    Press 117 

V.     Summary    123 

CHAPTER  VI.     DEVELOPMENT  OF  METHODIST  SOLIDARITY 125 

I.    Wesley's  Opposition  to  the  Unification  of  Methodism 125 

II.     Bishops  of  the  Established  Church  and  Methodism. 130 

_  III.     Confusion  of  Methodists  with  Catholics 136 

IV.     Opposition   to   the   Methodists 138 

CHAPTER  VII.    THE  ACTUAL  SEPARATION  AFTER  THE  DEATH  OF  WESLEY.   144 

I.     Paternal    Government    144 

II.     The    Eucharist    145 

III.  Hours   of   Church   Service 149 

IV.  The  Confusion  after  Wesley's  Death 153 

V.     Party  Struggle  and  the  Sacrament 156 

VI.     Trusteeism  and  the  Methodist  New  Connection 161 

VII.     Plan  of  Pacification  and  Regulations  of  Leeds 166 

CONCLUSION 171 

BIBLIOGRAPHY     175 


PREFACE 

THIS  work  is  undertaken  with  the  conviction  that  the  pro- 
foundest  interpretation  of  the  Methodist  movement  must  ulti- 
mately be  sociological.  History  may  give  us  the  facts;  but  one 
must  turn  to  sociology  for  any  satisfying  explanation  of  those 
facts. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  Methodist  movement,  the  Church- 
men and  the  majority  of  the  Methodists  were  members  of  the 
same  sociological  "group".  There  were  many  causes  contributing 
toward  the  breaking  up  of  this  group,  and  not  least  among  these 
was  the  difference  in  emphasis  on  doctrine,  as  well  as  the  efficient 
and  highly  centralized  organization  built  up  by  Wesley  and  his 
followers.  Opposition  to  the  organization  served  only  to 
strengthen  the  movement.  Conscious  of  an  ever-increasing 
strength,  and  opposed  on  every  hand,  the  Methodists  took  a  series 
of  steps:  they  ordained  their  preachers  without  permission  from 
the  Church;  they  refused  to  take  the  sacrament  from  the  clergy, 
but  administered  it  in  their  preaching  houses;  in  Church  hours 
they  conducted  divine  worship;  they  registered  their  meeting 
houses  as  places  of  dissent.  These  steps  completed  the  separa- 
tion. The  so-called  Plan  of  Pacification  and  the  Regulations  of 
Leeds  consciously  and  explicitly  confirmed  the  break.  The  pur- 
pose of  this  work  is  to  trace  the  factors  resulting  in  disrupting  the 
sociological  group,  and  thereby  making  the  separation  of  the 
Methodists  from  the  Church  of  England  a  historical  fact. 

The  works  here  used  are  listed  in  the  bibliography  at  the 
back  of  the  book;  but  it  is  necessary  to  explain  the  use  of  the  fol- 
lowing books:  i.  All  references  in  the  footnotes  to  the  Journal 
refer  to  John  Wesley's  Journal,  published  in  eight  volumes  by 
Eaton  and  Mains,  New  York,  1909,  under  the  editorship  of  the 
Rev.  Nehemiah  Curnock.  This  edition  is  the  latest  and  most 
scholarly;  and  is  especially  rich  in  notes  and  documents  not 
readily  found  elsewhere.  2.  All  references  to  Works  indicate  the 
Works  of  Rev.  John  Wesley,  A.M.,  New  York,  1831,  edited  by 

7 


8     *TH£  SEPARATION;  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

John  Emory  and  complete  in  seven  volumes.  These  Works  con- 
tain quite  accurate  copies  of  many  of  Wesley's  writings  otherwise 
practically  inaccessible.  3.  All  references  to  Tyerman  refer  to 
the  Life  and  Times  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  M.A.,  by  Rev. 
Luke  Tyerman,  New  York,  1870,  in  three  volumes.  This  ac- 
count is  quite  detailed  and  contains  many  documents  not  pub- 
lished elsewhere. 

This  study  could  not  have  been  completed  without  the  aid 
of  many  friends :  I  wish  to  express  my  appreciation  to  Mr. 
George  D.  Brown,  librarian  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary 
Library,  and  the  Rev.  Robert  E.  Harned,  librarian  of  Drew 
Theological  Seminary.  To  the  Library  of  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  and  especially  to  Miss  Cornelia  T.  Hudson  and  Miss 
Laura  S.  Turnbull,  efficient  and  skilful  members  of  its  staff,  I 
am  grateful  for  their  never-failing  cooperation.  Professor  John 
Alfred  Faulkner  of  Drew  Theological  Seminary  has  my  heartiest 
thanks  for  suggesting  this  theme,  reading  the  proof,  and  giving 
many  searching  criticisms.  I  am  indebted  to  Professor  William 
A.  Dunning  of  Columbia  University,  who  kindly  read  my  manu- 
script. Professor  F.  J.  Foakes  Jackson,  formerly  of  Cambridge 
University,  England,  now  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  has 
placed  me  under  a  great  debt  of  gratitude;  for  he  devoted  him- 
self unsparingly  to  my  interests  in  this  work.  To  Professor 
William  Walker  Rockwell  of  Union  Theological  Seminary  am  I 
deeply  grateful.  During  the  past  four  years  he  has  given  me 
without  stint  of  his  keen  criticism  and  inspiring  counsel. 


INTRODUCTION 

As  a  result  of  the  fall  of  the  Puritan  ideals  in  England  at 
the  restoration  of  Charles  II,  there  was  a  reaction  toward  im- 
morality. The  country,  heartily  tired  of  the  iron  rule  of  the 
Saints,  was  disposed  to  give  itself  over  to  a  reign  of  license.  At 
the  time  of  the  Revolution,  however,  the  higher  moral  ideals 
began  to  prevail,  and  strenuous  efforts  were  made  to  reform  the 
standard  of  life  and  conduct.  Christian  laymen  like  the  Hon. 
Robert  Boyle,  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Royal  Society,  who 
formulated  the  well  known  "Boyle's  Law",  worked  actively  to 
promote  Christian  principles.  For  twenty-eight  years  Boyle  was 
governor  of  the  Corporation  for  the  Spread  of  the  Gospel  in 
New  England,  and  when  he  died,  he  founded  and  endowed  with 
fifty  pounds  a  year  the  "Boyle  Lectures,"  for  the  defense  of 
Christianity  against  unbelievers.1  A  small  company  of  laymen, 
led  and  inspired  by  Dr.  Thomas  Bray,  an  eminent  divine  of  the 
period,  formed  themselves  into  the  voluntary  "Society  for  Pro- 
moting Christian  Knowledge,"  in  order  to  educate  the  poor,  and 
send  missionaries  to  America.  A  little  later,  in  1701,  the  "Society 
for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel"  was  organized  for  the  more 
distinct  purpose  of  advancing  religion  in  the  plantations.2 

The  reign  of  Anne  was  marked  by  a  distinct  revival  of  inter- 
est in  religion,  though  unfortunately  accompanied  by  a  recrudes- 
cence of  the  High  Church  spirit  opposed  to  the  principles  of  the 
Revolution.  After  the  accession  of  George  I  zeal  for  religion 
cooled,  especially  during  the  long  administration  of  Sir  Robert 
Walpole,  whose  ruling  idea  was  to  leave  things  as  they  were  and 
to  avoid  raising  the  passion  of  religious  fanaticism.  England 
was  occupied  with  her  increasing  commercial  prosperity,  and 
consequently  men  desired  to  maintain  the  status  quo*  In- 

lDictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  vi,  p.  121. 

2  Allen :   History   of  the  Society  for  Promoting   Christian  Knowledge. 
London,  1898,  p.  15. 

3  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  lix,  p.  203. 

9 


io      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

deed  all  religious  controversy  was  avoided  as  likely  to  provoke 
disorder. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  majority  in  the  Church  of 
England  were  characterized  by  indifference  and  lack  of  energy.4 
Zeal  was  repressed  rather  than  encouraged  by  many  of  the  bish- 
ops, "safe"  men  chosen  as  supporters  of  the  government.  The 
old  High  Church  party  were  looked  on  coldly  as  Jacobites;  and 
as  yet  there  was  no  evangelical  revival  to  compensate  for  their 
lack  of  influence. 

The  Dissenters,  recruited  from  the  trading  classes,  were 
prospering  greatly  by  the  long  peace,  and  were  characterized— 
though  with  notable  exceptions — by  a  destructive  tendency 
toward  deism  in  religion.  The  old  Puritan  zeal  had  burned 
itself  out;  yet  the  Dissenters  showed  no  desire  to  return  to  the 
Established  Church.  Dissent  was  in  fact  the  expression  of  the 
feelings  of  a  highly  respectable  middle  class  and  its  ministers 
under  a  voluntary  system  were  better  paid  than  the  poorer  clergy. 
The  government  regarded  the  Church  on  the  whole  as  useful  as 
a  moral  police  force,  encouraging  the  people  to  live  peacefully 
under  authority.  It,  however,  discouraged  manifestations  of 
religious  zeal  as  dangerous  to  itself  and  to  the  nation. 

Up  to  the  eighteenth  century  England  had  been  essentially 
an  agricultural  country.  Industrialism  now  began  to  be  a  power 
in  the  land  and  with  it  came  the  growth  of  great  cities,  with  the 
result  that  the  old  parochial  system  collapsed.  For  the  new 
•centers  of  population  no  parish  was  endowed  and  scarcely  a 
church  built.  There  was  no  system  of  public  instruction,  with 
the  result  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  population  was  in  a  state 
of  gross  ignorance.5 

In  such  an  England  as  this  were  John  Wesley  and  his 
friends  born.  When  they  realized  how  serious  were  the  condi- 
tions, and  how  supine  the  Church  had  become,  they  became  em- 
phatic in  expressing  their  views  as  to  the  deplorable  condition  of 
the  country  both  in  church  and  state. 

4Wakeman:  History  of  the  Church  of  England,  chap.  18. 
5  Vide  Gilbert  Slater :  The  Making  of  Modern  England. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  METHODIST  VIEW  OF  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

LIFE 

SECTION  I.     METHODIST  DISSATISFACTION  WITH  THE  CUSTOMS 
AND  RELIGION  OF  THE  TIMES 

JOHN  WESLEY,  in  a  survey  of  the  life  round  about  him,  asks : 
"What  is  the  present  characteristic  of  the  English  nation?"  He 
answers  his  own  question :  "It  is  ungodliness.  This  is  at  present 
the  characteristic  of  the  English  nation.  Ungodliness  is  our 
universal,  our  constant,  our  peculiar  characteristic."  Indeed, 
the  deist  of  the  time  was  quite  a  respectable  character  in  Wes- 
ley's estimation  when  compared  with  the  ungodly  man  of  the 
day.1  Wesley  was  very  clear  in  his  conviction  that  no  nation 
had  fallen  from  the  first  principles  of  religion  quite  as  low  as 
England.  England  was  contemptuous  of  all  truth,  she  had  an 
utter  disregard  for  even  "Heathen  morality,"  all  that  should 
be  dear  and  honorable  to  rational  creatures  she  neglected.2 

Wesley  did  not  speak  of  this  lack  of  piety  in  general  terms. 
He  was  specific  in  his  charges.  He  "once  believed  the  body  of 
English  merchants  to  be  men  of  strictest  honesty  and  honor"; 
but  reluctantly  declared  he  had  "lately  had  more  experience."3 
The  peasant  too  was  quite  ignorant  of  faith,  repentance,  holi- 
ness ;  and  of  religion  he  could  say  nothing  intelligently.4  Every 
class  in  England — lawyers,  gentry,  and  nobility — came  in  each 
for  its  share  of  his  scathing  remarks.  He  admitted  that  honest 
lawyers  were  to  be  had;  then  sarcastically  objected:  "But  are 
they  not  thinly  spread?"5  He  granted  that  religion  was  to  be 
found  among  the  gentry  and  the  nobility,  but  added:  "If  you 
think  they  are  all  men  of  religion,  you  think  very  differently 

1  An  Estimate  of  the  Manners  of  the  Present  Times.     Works,  vol.  vi, 

P-  349- 

2  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  142. 

3  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin.    Works,  vol.  v,  p.  516. 

4  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  514. 
0  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  516. 

II 


12      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

from  your  Master,  who  made  no  exception  of  time  or  nation 
when  he  uttered  that  weighty  sentence,  'How  difficultly  shall 
they  that  have  riches  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven/  "°  And 
very  bluntly,  in  a  sermon  before  the  University  of  Oxford 
preached  at  Saint  Mary's  in  the  year  1742,  he  denounced  the 
educated  classes  in  these  words :  "Brethren,  my  heart's  desire 
and  prayer  to  God  for  you  is,  that  ye  may  be  saved  from  this 
overflowing  ungodliness,  and  that  here  its  proud  waves  may  be 
stayed!  .  .  .  Ye  have  not  kept  yourselves  pure.  Corrupt  are 
we  and  also  abominable."7  Thus  the  learned  gownsmen  of 
Oxford  were  included  in  this  unhappy  picture  of  the  times. 

The  life  of  the  Methodists  was  a  constant  protest  against 
that  of  the  age.  They  disapproved  of  the  gaudy  dress  then  in 
vogue,  and  so  they  adopted  drab  and  somber  colors.8  They 
advocated  self-denial  even  to  the  extent  of  giving  up  the  popular 
but  then  expensive  luxury  of  drinking  tea.9  They  looked 
askance  at  many  of  the  publications  of  the  day,  and  would  have 
nothing  to  do  with  them,  as  frivolous  or  obscene.10  Whether 
the  Methodists  were  entirely  correct  in  their  estimate  of  the 
customs  and  habits  of  their  time  we  cannot  at  this  point  deter- 
mine. Here  we  wish  simply  to  show  that  they  were  dissatisfied 
with  its  moral  condition.  Like  all  severe  moralists  they  thought 
their  country  was  on  the  downward  grade. 

SECTION  II.     METHODIST  VIEW  OF  THE  CHURCH   AND  THE 

CLERGY 

The  Methodists  spared  neither  Church  nor  clergy.     Wesley 

.  himself  was  always  sparing  in  his  criticism,  but  other  Methodists 

were  not  so  guarded.11     Seward,   for  example,   said  that  the 

"scarlet  whore  of  Babylon"  was  not  more  corrupt  in  practice  or 

principle  than  the  Church  of  England.12     Not  that  some  mem- 

6  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  517. 

I  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  37. 
Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  545. 

'Ibid.,  p.  575. 

10  Vide  Methodist  and  Mimic,  1767. 

II  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  273. 

12  Seward :  Journal,  p.  71— quoted  in  Wills,  p.  229. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  13 

bers  of  the  church  were  not  apprehensive  as  to  its  condition.13 
Others  drew  attention  to  the  severe  judgment  of  popular  opinion 
regarding  the  Church.14  Bishop  Burnet  in  1713  spoke  out  boldly 
and  said,  "I  see  imminent  ruin  hanging  over  the  Church,  and  by 
consequence,  over  the  whole  Reformation.  The  outward  state 
of  things  is  black  enough,  God  knows;  but  that  which  heightens 
my  fears  rises  chiefly  from  the  inward  state  into  which  we  are 
unhappily  fallen."  The  bishop  further  accused  the  clergy  of 
being  unacquainted  with  the  Bible  and  maintained  that  their 
political  interests  were  a  danger  to  the  Church.15 

The  Dissenters  were  at  one  as  regards  the  general  state 
of  religion.  Dr.  John  Guyse  sarcastically  remarked  that  the 
preachers  and  the  people  were  content  to  lay  Christ  aside.  They 
were  in  such  a  state  that  they  needed  a  mediator  no  longer.18 
Abraham  Taylor,  an  independent  minister  at  Little  Moorfields, 
London,  stated  that  the  people  had  no  idea  of  what  the  Holy 
Spirit  was.  All  who  professed  to  rely  upon  the  aid  of  the  Spirit 
were  ridiculed.17  Isaac  Watts  claimed  that  the  decline  of  vital 
religion  within  the  hearts  of  men  was  a  matter  for  mourn- 
ful observation  among  all  that  laid  the  cause  of  God  to  heart.18 
His  advice  for  a  remedy  of  conditions  was  to  urge  ministers 
to  make  it  their  business  to  insist  upon  those  subjects  which 
were  inward  and  spiritual,  and  which  went  by  the  name  of 
t  "experimental  religion."19  Churchmen,  Dissenters,  and  Meth- 
odists thus  united  together  in  their  criticism  of  the  Church,  as 
representing  the  religion  of  the  majority  of  the  nation. 

Wesley  and  others  felt  that  the  weakness  of  the  Church 
lay  in  the  moral  and  intellectual  weakness  of  the  clergy,  whom 
he  describes  as  ''dull,  heavy,  blockish  ministers;  men  of  no  life, 
no  spirit,  no  readiness  of  thought;  who  are  consequently  the 
jest  of  every  pert  fool,  every  lively,  airy  coxcomb  they  meet."20 


13  Serious  Address  to  the  Members  of  the  Church  of  England,  passim. 

"Ibid.,  p.  5- 

16 Jackson:   Centenary  of  Wesleyan  Methodism,  pp.   14-15. 

16  Ibid.,  op.  cit.,  p.  iQff. 

17  Ibid.,  p.  23. 

18  Watts:  An  Humble  Attempt  Toward  the  Revival    .    .    .    pref.,  pp.  2-3. 

19  Ibid.,  p.  55- 

20  Works,  vol.  vi,  pp.  2-3. 


I4      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Bishop  Gibson  replied  to  Whitefield's  strictures  in  his  Pastoral 
letter.21  They  had  little  grip  on  their  people.  Their  parishion- 
ers were  held  as  by  a  "rope  of  sand."22  Taylor  in  his  Defence 
of  Methodism  asserted  that  the  clergy,  as  a  rule,  were  worldly 
and  ignorant  political  organizers  rather  than  pastors.  He  main- 
tained that  the  Church  had  been  oppressive  ever  since  the  days 
of  Elizabeth.  To  prove  this  he  inserted  a  list  of  good  men 
sacrificed  to  its  system.23  But  the  greatest  scandal  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Methodists  was  the  drunkenness  prevalent  in  the  clerical 
profession.  Thus  at  Newtownbarry,  in  Ireland,  the  members 
of  the  Methodist  Society  would  not  go  to  the  parish  Church  on 
'  |  account  of  the  drinking  habits  of  the  clergyman.24  At  Yar- 
mouth Wesley  describes  the  people  as  "being  full  of  prejudice 
against  the  clergy  for  this  reason."25  Joseph  Crownley,  a  lay- 
man, dared  not  hear  a  drunkard  preach  or  read  prayers.26  He 
and  others  appealed  to  the  Wesleys  as  leaders  of  their  cause, 
asking  whether  they  were  obliged  to  submit  themselves  to  the 
ministrations  of  an  intemperate  clergyman.  At  Wednesbury, 
a  gentleman  rode  up  to  a  group  to  which  John  Wesley  was 
speaking,  and  after  insulting  him  sought  to  trample  upon  the 
people  with  his  horse.  Wesley  found  that  he  was  a  drunken 
clergyman.27 

Nor  was  intemperance  the  only  fault.  Charles  Wesley 
was  shocked  at  their  behavior  during  divine  service  at  Christ 
Church.28  John  Wesley  spoke  of  some  clergy  as  being  "in  the 
high  road  to  hell."  Many,  in  his  estimation,  were  wolves  in 
,  sheep's  clothing.  They  were  characterized  as :  common  swear- 
ers, open  drunkards,  notorious  Sabbath  breakers — "and  such 
are  many  parochial  ministers  of  this  day."  Wesley  could  not 
and  would  not  urge  his  followers  to  worship  under  such  men 
as  these.  Every  man  must  judge  for  himself.29  So  in  answer 

21  Gibson :  Pastoral  Letter,  p.  24. 

22Outram:  p.  125. 

28T.  Taylor :  Defence  of  Meth.  passim. 

24  Jour.,  vol.  v,  p.  328. 

25  Ibid.,  p.  245. 

8 Jackson:  Life  of  Charles  Wesley,  p.  508. 

27  Jour.,  vol.  i,  p.  75. 

28  C.  Wesley :  Jour.,  vol.  i,  p.  380. 

29  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  325. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  15 

to  the  questions  of  his  followers  as  to  whether  they  should  sit 
under  the  ministrations  of  a  drunken  or  immoral  clergyman, 
Wesley  replied,  "it  is  the  duty  of  every  private  Christian  to 
obey  his  spiritual  pastor,  by  either  doing  or  leaving  undone  any- 
thing of  an  indifferent  nature;  anything  that  is  in  no  way  deter- 
mined in  the  word  of  God."30  This  was  an  indirect  way  of 
saying,  that  in  the  important  things,  it  was  not  necessary  for 
a  Methodist  to  obey  a  bad  clergyman. 

Wesley  was  always  ready  to  acknowledge  the  merits  of 
worthy  clergymen.  As,  for  instance,  when  Mr.  Vowler  at  Saint 
Agnes  preached  "two  such  thundering  sermons"  as  he  had  scarce 
heard  in  twenty  years.  Wesley's  comment  is  that  God  was 
very  good  to  the  sinners  of  Saint  Agnes.31  Indeed,  whenever 
he  was  accused  of  being  abusive  he  took  pains  to  emphatically 
deny  the  charge.32 

Such  was  the  general  opinion  of  the  clergy.  If  it  was  true, 
it  was  only  true  in  part.  For  example,  in  Methodism  Displayed, 
Bate  says  that  the  statements  adverse  to  the  character  of  church- 
men were  not  worth  noticing,  because  they  were  such  good 
people.33  Again,  Bishop  Porteus  in  his  Life  of  Archbishop 
Seeker  says :  "The  dignity  of  his  form  .  .  .  inspired  at  all 
times  respect  and  awe,  but  peculiarly  when  he  engaged  in  any 
of  the  more  solemn  functions  of  religion;  into  which  he  entered 
with  such  earnestness  and  warmth,  with  so  just  a  consciousness 
of  the  place  he  was  in,  and  the  business  he  was  about  as  seemed 
to  raise  him  above  himself,  and  added  new  life  and  spirit  to  the 
natural  gracefulness  of  his  appearance."34  Then  as  always  there 
were  good  and  bad  clergy;  the  question  was  which  element 
preponderated  ? 

The  Methodists,  perhaps  not  unnaturally,  took  a  decidedly 
gloomy  view  of  the  ordinary  life  of  their  age  and  especially  of 
the  condition  of  the  Church.  Rightly  or  wrongly  the  verse  they 
placed  upon  the  tombstone  of  J.  W.  Fletcher,  of  Madeley,  repre- 

30  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  327. 

81  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  234. 

32  J.  Wesley :  Letter  to  Author  of  Enthusiasm,  p.  10. 

3  Bate :  Meth.  Displayed,  p.  37. 

84  Life  of  Seeker,  p.  liv. 


1 6      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

sented  their  sentiments :  "All  day  long,  have  I  stretched  out  my 
hands  to  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people."35  They  might 
be  wrong,  but  this  was  their  conviction.  Individuals  with  such 
convictions  act.  The  Methodists  were  no  exception.  Life  in 
their  view  must  be  completely  changed,  the  Church  purified, 
religion  must  again  come  to  its  own.  One  outcome  of  this  con- 
viction and  action  was  to  arouse  in  some  a  desire  to  go  out  from 
the  Church  as  established. 


Life  of  J.  Fletcher,  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  483. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  CHURCHMAN'S  VIEW  OF  EIGHTEENTH 
CENTURY  LIFE 

THE  Methodists  took  no  flattering  view  of  the  Church,  and 
many  churchmen  were  equally  ready  with  their  criticisms.  The 
reason  for  this  antipathy  is  to  be  found  in  the  prevalent  dread 
of  what  was  then  known  as  "enthusiasm." 

SECTION  I.    ENTHUSIASM 

"Enthusiasm,"  as  used  in  the  eighteenth  century,  meant 
not  zeal  for  a  cause,  but  possession  by  a  spirit  resembling  in- 
sanity. When  the  Methodists  first  began  to  preach,  certain 
extraordinary  manifestations  accompanied  their  efforts.  Thus 
Wesley  recorded  that  while  he  was  preaching  a  woman  in  his 
audience  was  affected;  "her  teeth  gnashed  together,  her  knees 
smote  each  other,  her  body  trembled  exceedingly."1  At  another 
time  he  told  of  how  he  was  preaching  and  "one  sunk  down, 
and  another,  and  another;  some  cried  aloud  in  an  agony  of 
prayer."  One  young  man  and  one  young  woman  were  brought 
into  a  house  nearby  where  they  continued  in  violent  physical 
agony.2  At  another  time  twenty-six  were  affected,  and  they 
all  seemed  worse  than  as  if  they  had  been  afflicted  with  hysteria 
or  epileptic  fits.3  At  Kings  wood,  during  the  communion  service, 
one  woman  dropped  down  as  dead  while  she  was  taking  the 
sacrament.4  When  preaching  took  place  at  Newgate  prison, 
the  entire  prison  "rang  with  cries."5  A  Mrs.  Means  was  dis- 
puting with  Wesley.  On  the  way  home  she  felt  the  "piercing 
of  a  sword,"  and  before  she  could  get  to  her  home,  she  could 
not  avoid  crying  out  aloud,  even  in  the  street.6 

lJour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  152. 

2  Overton :  Life  of  Wesley,  p.  112. 

8  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  222. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  232. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  185. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  148. 


i8      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

These  occurred  not  only  among  the  immediate  followers 
of  Wesley,  but  even  among  those  who  were  actually  hostile  to 
the  movement.  John  Wilde,  who  said  that  none  but  hypocrites 
had  these  spells,  had  one  himself.  Another  woman  at  Long 
Lane  always  became  angry  at  those  who  pretended  to  be  in  fits. 
She  also  had  a  spell  of  great  agony.7  At  Baldwin  Street  Church, 
a  Quaker  came  to  see  the  fraud  and  to  expose  it.  "He  dropped 
down  thunderstruck,"  and  "his  agony  was  terrible  to  behold."8 
A  prominent  churchman,  who  also  wished  to  see  the  fraud,  came 
thither  and  in  turn  was  overcome.9 

Not  only  under  the  preaching  of  John  Wesley  did  these 
events  happen.  Other  men,  including  Whitefield  and  sometimes 
Charles  Wesley,  found  their  hearers  thus  affected.  Even  Ralph 
Erskine,  a  minister  of  Scotland,  who  was  in  no  way  connected 
with  the  Wesleys,  had  wonderful  effects  attend  his  preaching.10 

This  peculiar  type  of  religious  excitement  was  not  limited 
to  the  early  days  of  the  Methodist  movement.  In  1785,  John 
Mance,  an  old  man,  sank  down  at  a  service  at  Saint  Ives.  He 
was  carried  out  of  the  church  and  died  immediately.11  It  would 
seem  that  "enthusiasm"  in  this  case  had  caused  heart  failure. 
In  1786,  a  service  was  described  in  which  all , pray  aloud  at  the 
same  time,  some  scream,  some  use  indecent  expressions  in 
prayer,  some  drop  down  dead  and  then  stand  up  again  and 
shout  "glory!"12 

The  attitude  of  Wesley  toward  all  of  these  doings  appears 
to  have  varied.  He  preached  occasionally  the  terrors  of  the 
Lord  in  the  strongest  manner  he  was  able.13  Beau  Nash,  the 
famous  Master  of  the  Ceremonies  at  Bath,  told  Wesley  to  his 
face  that  his  preaching  frightened  people  out  of  their  wits.14 
George  Whitefield,  who  doubted  the  reality  of  this  enthusiasm, 
was  convinced  when  he  came  to  Wesley.  Thereupon  Wesley 


7  Jour.,  pp.  376-377. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  187. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  lopff. 

10  Moore :  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  i,  p.  364. 

11  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  109. 

12  Ibid.,  vol.  yii,  p.  153. 
18  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  344. 
"Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  212. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  19 

remarked:  "From  this  time  I -trust  we  shall  all  suffer  God  to 
carry  on  his  own  work  in  the  way  that  pleaseth  him."15  It  would 
thus  seem  that  Wesley  encouraged  this  enthusiasm. 

Yet  in  the  realm  of  dreams  and  visions  he  was  more  cau- 
tious. At  the  Fishponds,  Wesley  cautioned  his  hearers  against 
dreams,  revelations,  visions,  tears,  or  any  involuntary  effects 
upon  their  bodies.  Yet  even  while  he  was  doing  this  people 
dropped  down.16  Wesley  admitted  that  he  had  seen  dreams 
change  people;  but  he  would  not  judge  them  to  be  Christians 
on  the  basis  of  dreams,  but  on  the  whole  subsequent  tenor  of 
their  lives.17  Agitations,  visions,  or  dreams  were  not  certain 
evidence  of  true  conversion  to  God.  They  might  accompany 
such  conversion,  but  they  were  not  the  sole  evidence  of  its 
reality.18  Yet  the  conference  of  1745,  under  the  influence  of 
Wesley,  went  on  record  saying  that  it  did  not  intend  to  dis- 
courage these  visions  and  dreams,  and  declaring  "we  cannot 
deny  that  saving  faith  is  often  given  in  dreams  or  visions  of  the 
night."19  Thus  although  dreams  and  visions  were  admitted, 
they  were  not  considered  necessary  for  vital  religion. 

On  the  other  hand,  Wesley  was  outspoken  against  the  more 
extravagant  forms  of  enthusiasm.  Some  said  they  felt  the 
blood  of  Christ  running  upon  their  arms,  or  going  down  their 
throats,  or  poured  like  warm  water  upon  their  breasts  or  hearts. 
Wesley  briefly  dismissed  all  this  as  the  result  of  a  heated  im- 
agination.20 Mary  Watson  took  part  in  a  Methodist  meeting 
by  reciting  the  following  verse : 

"Why   do   these  cares   my   soul   divide, 

If  thou  indeed  hast  set  me  free? 
Why  am  I  thus,  if  God  hath  died, 

If  God  hath  died  to  purchase  me? 
Around  me  clouds  of  darkness  roll; 

In  deepest  night  I  still  walk  on : 
Heavily  moves  my  damned  soul, 

My  comfort  and  my  God  are  gone." 

This  religious  melancholia  Wesley  would  not  tolerate.     Mary 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  240. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  226. 

7  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  203. 

18  Moore :  op  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  363. 

19  Mm.  of  1745.     Works,  vol.  v,  p.  200. 
~°  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  44. 


20      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Watson  was  rebuked  and  made  to  keep  quiet.21  At  Bristol  five 
persons  raged  in  a  room  where  Wesley  was  trying  to  preach. 
He  would  not  have  his  voice  interrupted,  or  the  attention  of 
his  congregation  diverted;  so  he  ordered  these  persons  to  be 
removed  while  he  preached.  Wesley  would  not  permit  enthu- 
siasm to  interfere  with  his  services.22  Later  on  he  took  the 
steps  to  give  his  preachers  formal  directions  to  assist  them  in 
overcoming  enthusiasm. 

The  problem  that  faced  Wesley  was  the  one  ever  recurring 
problem  that  had  come  before  the  Church  fathers  whenever  a 
belief  in  a  new  and  final  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  arose.  As 
early  as  the  second  century  the  same  phenomenon  occurred 
among  some  zealots  who  hailed  the  appearance  of  the  Paraclete 
in  Phrygia,  and  surrendered  themselves  to  his  guidance.  These 
were  known  as  Montanists,  and  their  enthusiasm  and  prophesy- 
ings  were  attributed  to  the  devil  by  the  bishops,  who  after 
vainly  attempting  to  exorcise  the  spirit  by  which  they  were 
possessed  put  them  out  of  the  Church.23 

In  Luther's  day  a  claim  to  direct  inspiration,  which  was 
quite  similar  to  that  made  by  the  Montanists,  was  made  by  the 
so-called  Zwickau  Prophets,  and  was  stoutly  opposed  by  Luther, 
who  endeavored  to  silence  them  by  his  ridicule.24  The  Quaker 
movement,  resting  on  a  similar  claim  to  miracles,  prophecies, 
and  the  direct  inspiration  of  its  adherents,  was  opposed  by  the 
organized  churches  both  in  England  and  America  on  the  ground 
of  blasphemy.25  As  a  member  of  the  Church,  Wesley  was  dis- 
posed to  assume  the  same  attitude  toward  these  claims  of  direct 
inspiration  and  this  enthusiasm. 

Wesley  not  only  acted,  but  he  also  wrote  and  preached 
against  enthusiasm.  In  a  letter  to  Miss  Ritchie,  he  makes  his 
personal  position  quite  clear.  "I  am  rarely  led  by  impressions, 
but  generally  by  reason  and  the  Scripture.  I  see  abundantly 
more  than  I  feel."26  When  it  came  to  a  definition  of  enthusiasm, 


21  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  303. 

22  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  324. 

28  Eusebius :  Church  History,  Book  v,  chap,  xviff. 

24  New  Schaff-Herzog  Ency.,  1908,  vol.  i,  p.  162. 

25  F.  S.  Turner :  The  Quakers.    London,  1889,  pp.  120  and  168. 
M  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  183. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  21 

Wesley  appeared  to  be  upon  nearly  a  common  ground  with  the 
clergy.  "I  was  with  two  persons  who  I  doubt  are  properly 
enthusiasts.  For  first,  they  think  to  attain  the  end  without  the 
means;  which  is  enthusiasm  so  called.  Again,  they  think  them- 
selves inspired  of  God  and  are  not.  But  false  imaginary  inspira- 
tion is  enthusiasm."27  In  preaching,  he  declared  that  there  was 
a  real  spirit  of  God,  and  an  imaginary  one,  which  enthusiasts 
failed  to  distinguish  and  therefore  were  deceived.28  In  addi- 
tion to  this,  he  said  that  some  expected  to  attain  their  ends  by 
the  supernatural  intervention  of  God's  power.  This  was  not 
the  case:  "If  we  have  the  means,  if  we  can  do  the  given  task 
ourself,  it  is  our  duty  to  do  so.  God  will  not  miraculously  do 
for  us  what  we  should  do  for  ourselves."29  He  declared  that 
thinking  men  meant  by  enthusiasm  a  sort  of  religious  madness; 
a  false  imagination  of  being  inspired  of  God;  a  fancying  of 
one's  self  to  be  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  when  in 
fact  one  is  not.30 

Many  Methodists  shared  in  the  distrust  of  "enthusiasm"; 
as  one  of  them  writes,  he  had  seen  enthusiasm  and  error  creep 
into  his  church,  obliging  him  to  rebuke  the  leaders  because  they 
were  not  more  vigorous  in  combating  it.31  They  should  have,  he 
remarks,  restrained  and  not  fostered  the  unprofitable  emotions 
of  "screaming,  hallowing,  and  jumping,  and  the  stepping  and 
singing  of  merry  senseless  airs.  These  have  often  prejudiced 
true  and  vital  religion."32  A  Life  of  Wesley  denies  that  Meth- 
odism was  responsible  for  these  excesses,  though  the  author 
blamed  Wesley  for  not  being  on  his  guard  better  against  them.3a 

To  enable  the  reader  to  decide  what  was  the  cause  of  this, 
"enthusiasm,"  we  cannot  do  better  than  draw  instances  of  it  as 
evidence.  These  cases,  which  would  now  be  ascribed  to  insanity, 
were  by  Wesley  assigned  to  the  direct  operation  of  God  or  of 
Satan. 


27  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  130. 

28  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  333. 

29  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  335- 
80  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  76. 

31  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  334. 

32Wesleyan  Methodist:  Meth.  Error,  pref. 

33  Hampson :  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  137. 


22      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

In  October,  1739,  he  was  called  in  to  see  a  woman  taken 
ill  the  evening  before.  She  was  in  a  fury,  gnashed  her  teeth 
and  raved,  but  after  two  days  was  calm.34  A  certain  Alice 
Miller,  a  girl  fifteen  years  old,  fell  into  a  trance,  but  here  there 
was  no  raving.35 

In  such  instances  the  only  remedy  was  prayer.  Again, 
Sally  Jones,  of  Kings  wood,  who  was  very  ignorant,  was  under 
a  spell.  "The  thousand  distortions  of  her  whole  body  showed 
how  the  dogs  of  hell  were  gnawing  at  her  heart."  She  declared 
she  belonged  to  the  devil,  and  prayed  to  him  to  come  and  take 
her.  Wesley  began  to  sing  a  hymn,  then  prayed,  and  this  quieted 
her.36  A  Mrs.  Crompton,  though  enraged  at  Wesley's  preach- 
ing, fell  also  in  one  of  these  spells,  but  Wesley  prayed  with  her 
and  she  declared  her  sins  forgiven.37  Dr.  James  Munroe,  chief 
physician  of  Bethlehem  Hospital,  once  sent  a  case  of  madness 
to  Wesley,  and  Wesley  said  the  patient  would  recover  if  she 
only  would  trust  God.38  Yet  in  no  case  would  he  admit  that 
such  manifestations  were  the  results  of  disordered  minds.  He 
maintained  that  these  persons  were  in  perfect  health,  and  that 
the  spell  had  come  upon  them  suddenly.  It  was  Satan  tearing 
them.  Nor  would  he  have  agreed  with  Southey's  explanation 
that  Wesley,  "like  Mesmer  and  his  disciples,  had  produced  a  new 
disease,  and  he  accounted  for  it  by  a  theological  theory  instead 
of  a  physical  one."39 

One  is  not,  however,  surprised*  to  hear  Wesley  ask  in  the 
Conference  of  1778:  "Why  do  so  many  of  our  preachers  fall 
into  nervous  disorders?"  and  simply  suggesting  that  it  was 
the  strain  of  zeal  and  emotion  reached  in  the  meetings,  which 
was  more  than  Methodist  preachers  could  endure. 

Modern  biographers  of  Wesley,  like  Overton,  consider  that 
exhibitions  of  this  enthusiasm  can  be  accounted  for  by  distraught 
emotion  in  excited  crowds;  and  that  Wesley  was  often  imposed 


34  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  300. 

35  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  347. 

36  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  288. 
31 Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  147. 
38  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  280. 

30  Southey :  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  i,  p.  214. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  23 

upon  by  them.40  Cadman's  theory  is  that  John  Wesley  so  con- 
trolled his  own  powerful  emotion,  that  the  people  who  listened 
could  not  stand  the  strain  and  were  obliged  to  give  vent  to  their 
feelings  and  fell  down  overcome  by  them.41 

Modern  psychology  explains  these  actions,  in  part,  by 
attributing  them  to  fresh  sensory  elements  that  often  play  a  part 
in  conversion.  Dr.  Coe  reminds  us  that  the  tone  of  the  preacher's 
voice;  the  rhythm,  volume,  and  melody  of  the  revival  songs; 
organic  sensations,  such  as  thrills,  tingles,  shudders;  very  pos- 
sibly now  and  then  sexual  sensations  not  recognized  as  such — all 
of  these  must  be  reckoned  with  in  connection  with  conversion.42 
He  says:  "It  is  clear,  for  example,  that  a  bold,  commanding 
tone  and  manner  on  the  part  of  some  preachers  produce  an  effect 
over  and  above  what  they  say."  43  Wesley,  by  his  commanding 
tone  and  manner  and  the  ideas  he  suggested,  aroused  the  ex- 
citability of  his  uneducated  hearers  and  caused  manifestations 
of  enthusiasm  which  would  not  have  occupied  people  of  better 
disciplined  minds. 

But  for  many  Methodists  these  experiences  were  essential. 
Their  conversion  would  not  have  been  complete  without  some 
exceptional  manifestation.  And  the  average  convert  would 
testify  thus :  "In  this  violent  agony  I  continued  four  hours  .  .  . 
I,  who  had  nothing  but  devils  to  drag  me  down  to  hell,  now  found 
I  had  angels  to  guide  me  to  my  reconciled  father."  44  Rightly  or 
wrongly,  the  average  Methodist  valued  such  an  experience  as 
a  necessary  assurance  of  salvation. 

Having  seen  what  enthusiasm  was,  we  must  inquire  how 
it  appeared  in  the  eyes  of  the  outside  world. 


SECTION  II.    THE  CHURCH  VIEW  OF  ENTHUSIASM 

Religious  controversy  had  been  going  on  in  England  ever 
since  the  days  of  Henry  VIII;  and  at  the  opening  of  the  eight- 

40  Overton :  Life  of  Wesley,  p.  113. 

41  Cadman :  Three  Religious  Leaders  of  Oxford,  section  on  Wesley. 

42  Psychology  of  Religion,  p.  157. 
"Ibid.,  p.  158. 

44  Jour.,  vol.  i,  p.  no. 


24      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

eenth  century  it  was  hoped  that  it  had  been  allayed  by  the  revo- 
lution settlement.  People  dreaded  its  renewal,  and  were  preju- 
diced against  any  who  seemed  likely  to  revive  it  by  their  preach- 
ing. Josiah  Tucker  expressed  the  popular  view,  "The  last  cen- 
tury furnishes  us  with  a  melancholy  proof  in  our  own  country. 
Whosoever  will  be  at  the  trouble  of  comparing  the  first  rise 
of  those  troubles  which  at  last  overturned  the  constitution  and 
ruined  the  nation,  will  see  too  great  a  similitude  between  them 
and  the  present  risings  of  enthusiastic  rant  not  to  apprehend 
the  danger  that,  unless  proper  precautions  be  taken  in  time,  the 
remote  consequences  may  be  fatal."  The  whole  nation  was 
open  to  new  ideas;  enthusiasm  was  advancing  rapidly.45  In 
other  words,  the  new  enthusiasm  seemed  likely  to  cause  trouble 
as  it  had  done  in  the  past.  Churchmen,  disgusted  by  the  ex- 
cesses of  Quakers,  Moravians,  and  French  Prophets,  included 
the  Methodists  among  other  disturbers  of  the  political  peace.46 
They  were  further  provoked  by  Dissenting  publications  defend- 
ing schism.  Neal's  four  volumes  entitled,  The  History  of  the 
Puritans,  and  Calamy's  works  nettled  the  Churchmen.47 

In  addition  to  the  trials  of  controversy,  the  Church,  in  its 
controversy  with  rationalism,  had  in  a  measure  fallen  under  its 
influence.  This  being  the  case,  one  need  not  be  surprised  to 
hear  that  "religion  is  a  wise,  a  still,  a  silent  thing,  that  consists 
not  in  freaks  of  fancy,  and  whirlwinds  of  passions;  but  in  a 
divine  temper  of  mind,  and  a  universal  resignation  of  our  wills 
to  God;  and  this  not  only  in  intermittent  fits  of  passion,  but  in 
the  midst  of  cool  thoughts  and  calm  deliberations."48  Could 
anything  be  farther  from  the  Methodist  "enthusiasm"  than  this 
cool  rationalistic  frame  of  mind? 

Thus  many  Churchmen  were  conscientiously  opposed  to 
"enthusiasm"  and  those  who  practiced  it,  as  contrary  to  the 
spirit  of  what  they  conceived  to  be  religion,  and  as  subversive 
of  the  discipline  of  the  Church.49  Methodism  was  called  a 


45  Tucker:  Conduct  of  White  field,  p.  n. 
48  Evans :  History  of  Enthusiasm,  passim. 

47  Ibid.,  pref .,  p.  xvii. 

48  Scott:  Fine  Picture  of  Methodism,  p.  14. 

49  Free:  Sermon,  1/58,  p.  7. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  25 

species  of  enthusiasm  which  drew  attention  so  strongly  to  some 
particular  doctrines  and  duties  of  revealed  religion,  and  fixed 
it  upon  these  doctrines  so  intently  as  to  exclude  the  other  parts 
of  religion,  and  even  morality  itself.50 

The  opponents  of  Methodism  demanded,  not  unreasonably, 
evidence  in  support  of  their  claims.  Samuel  Wesley,  the  older 
brother  of  John  Wesley,  voiced  this  demand  when  he  said  to 
his  brother:  "Your  followers  fall  into  agonies.  I  confess  it. 
They  are  freed  from  it  after  you  have  prayed  over  them. 
Granted.  They  say  it  is  the  Lord's  doing.  I  own  they  say  so. 
Dear  brother,  where  is  your  ocular  demonstration?  Where, 
indeed,  the  rational  proof?"51  Samuel  Wesley  here  felt  the  lack 
of  evidence.  The  Churchmen  felt  that  God  did  not  manifest 
himself  by  extraordinary  acts  of  his  power;  but  in  his  regular 
Providence  should  men  be  the  more  apt  to  find  him  ?52  To  deny 
this  was  likely  to  lead  to  a  rejection  of  the  plain  and  practical 
precepts  of  Christianity;  to  follow  after  vain  delusions  which 
encouraged  fanatical  conceit.53 

John  Green  stated  the  point  clearly  when  he  objected  to 
the  Methodist  claims :  "You  have  received  some  extraordinary 
manifestation  of  God's  favor  and  discoveries  of  his  will,  and 
you  require  us  to  believe  them;  give  us  then  some  reasonable 
and  satisfactory  proof,  on  which  our  belief  may  be  properly 
grounded;  otherwise  you  are  much  too  arbitrary  and  assuming 
in  what  you  require.  .  .  .  put  us  not  off  with  flights,  raptures, 
and  assertions."54  This  seems  to  be  a  just  demand  by  a  serious, 
reasoning  Churchman. 

The  Methodists  gave  great  offense  by  their  pretension  to 
intimate  acquaintance  with  God  and  heavenly  things.55  To 
many  no  illusion  could  be  more  diabolical  than  that  a  man  should 
hearken  to  the  suggestions  which  he  miscalled  conscience  and  the 
spirit  of  God  within  him,  in  preference  to  the  plain  revelation 
of  God's  will  in  the  Scripture.  The  law  of  nature;  right  rea- 

60  Essay  on  Character  of  Methodism,  p.  n. 

51  Letter  quoted  in  Moore's  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  i,  p.  372. 

52  Principles  and  Practices  of  Methodism,  p.  13. 

53  H.  Smith :  Methodist  Conceit,  p.  22ff. 

54  Principles  and  Practices  of  Methodism,  p.  20. 
55Kirby:  p.  3. 


26      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

son;  these  should  be  the  guides  for  man's  action.56  Many  Church- 
men had  the  idea  that  Methodist  enthusiasm  consisted  in  un- 
common degrees  of  illumination  which  showed  itself  in  "a  relig- 
ious distemper"  and  often  in  a  "downright  frenzy."  "It  pre- 
tends to  hold  an  intimate  communion  with  God.  ...  it  sets  up 
for  voices  and  visions  and  dreams,  for  new  lights  and  new  paths, 
in  derogation  and  opposition  to  the  written  word.  ...  It  aims 
at  pitches  of  devotion,  at  heights  and  ecstasies,  besides  the  com- 
mon rate.  ...  it  despises  the  rational  way  of  serving  God  by 
sober  signs  and  solid  effects  of  unaffected  piety  and  the  con- 
scientious practise  of  good  Christian  morality."57 

The  argument  ran:  If  the  Methodists  have  direct  revela- 
tion, why  do  they  not  give  proof?  If  the  Methodists  have  this 
direct  revelation,  why  do  they  live  bad  lives?  The  anonymous 
author  of  Principles  and  Practices  of  Methodists  said  that  the 
Methodists  for  all  their  outward  signs  of  enthusiasm,  "yet  seem 
not,  so  far  as  people  can  judge  from  outward  demeanor,  to  be 
reclaimed  from  habits  of  vice  .  .  .  though  they  have  experi- 
enced such  agonies  of  mind  and  body  .  .  .  yet  several  of  them 
still  continue  to  give  offense  to  serious  persons,  by  a  loose,  dis- 
orderly behavior."58 

The  zeal  of  Methodists  certainly  led  them  into  indiscretions 
which  provoked  the  accusations  that  they  had  "inherited  the 
extraordinary  light  of  the  Gnostics,"  as  Downes  ironically  put 
it;  but  in  all  of  their  accusations  against  the  enthusiasm  of  the 
Methodists  their  opponents  never  seemed  to  have  been  able  to 
substantiate  the  charge  of  immorality.59 

The  enthusiasm  of  George  Whitefield  drew  forth  vigorous 
protests  from  the  clergy,  especially  when  he  claimed  the  sanction 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  for  his  preaching.  He  was  challenged  to  pro- 
duce evidence  for  this  claim.60  Whitefield  and  his  associates 
caused  further  offense  by  their  depreciation  of  reason.61 

Whitefield' s    journals    were    the    cause    of    much    offense. 

56  Evans :  History  of  Enthusiasm,  pref.  p.  xiv. 
"Grey:  Address  to  Lay-Meth..  p.  i3ff. 
58  P.  31. 
^^Methodism  Examined,  p.  12. 

60  Observations  on  Mr.  Seagrave's  Conduct,  p.  36. 

61  John  Green:  Principles  and  Practices,  p.  n. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  27 

Thoughtful  clergymen  hated  them.  "Don't  you  think  they  are 
all  damned  cant?"  Wesley  was  asked.  His  inquirer  felt  that 
these  journals  dealt  with  "joy  and  stuff,  and  inward  feeling."62 
The  contents  of  these  journals  were  quite  repulsive  in  the  eyes 
of  sober-minded  clergymen.  As  for  instance  when  Whitefield 
rather  extravagantly  said  that  it  was  good  providence  that  he 
and  his  sister-in-law  could  not  agree  when  they  worked  together 
at  Bell  Inn,  his  enemies  could  not  contain  themselves.  "He  has 
certainly  struck  a  bold  note,"  they  said,  "in  making  God  the 
direct  author  of  the  ridiculous  squabbles  between  him  and  his 
sister."63 

Josiah  Tucker  in  his  work  entitled,  The  Genuine  Secret 
Memoires  of  George  Whitefield,  reached  the  high  water  mark 
of  bitterness  in  his  ungenerous  allusions  to  Whitefield  having 
been  a  "common  drawer"  in  a  public  house  in  early  life.  "There," 
said  Tucker,  "he  appeared  to  be  acting  in  his  proper  sphere,  and 
there  are  several  notable  improvements  in  the  profession  ascribed 
to  him;  he  is  said  to  have  frothed  a  mug  of  ale  a  tenth  deeper 
than  any  tapster  in  the  three  kingdoms,  to  have  been  the  first 
to  have  soaped  the  edges  of  the  pot,  in  order  to  make  the  beer 
retain  its  head."64  Whitefield's  narrative  of  his  own  birth  and 
the  premonitions  to  his  mother  telling  her  of  what  great  com- 
fort he  should  be  to  her  was  ridiculed  by  Tucker.65  He  does 
not  scruple  to  impute  much  to  Whitefield  that  does  not  appear 
in  his  journal,  but  can  be  inferred  only  by  reading  between  the 
lines.66  Tucker  ends  by  saying  that  Whitefield's  journals  did 
not  show  that  he  had  any  intimate  communion  with  God;  but 
rather  with  the  devil,  and  if  he  was  inspired  at  all,  he  was  in- 
spired only  by  the  devil.67 

It  must  be  confessed  that  Whitefield's  journals  do  give  an 
opening  for  attack;  and  when  it  was  declared  that  when  White- 
field  left  the  movement  one  more  enthusiast  was  disposed  of, 
one  cannot  forbear  thinking  that  this  was  correct.68  Neverthe- 

62  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  319. 

63  Methodism  Dissected,  p.  19. 


64  Op.  cit.,  p.  33- 
"Ibid.,  p.  17. 


66  Pp.  39-40  and  54-55- 

"P.  ii. 

68  Evans:  History  of  Enthusiasm,  p.  m. 


28      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

less,  when  the  attackers  of  these  journals  went  so  far  as  to 
accuse  Whitefield  of  immorality  and  his  writings  as  tainted  with 
obscenity,  they  brought  no  evidence  to  prove  their  contention. 

The  opposition  of  the  Church  to  enthusiasm  was  not  based 
upon  a  doctrinal  basis  alone.  It  objected  to  certain  enthusiastic 
habits  which  the  Methodists  indulged  in.  It  did  not  like  the 
disposition  to  allegorize  and  spiritualize  the  most  plain  and 
obvious  texts  which  was  common  among  the  Methodists,69  and 
the  practice  of  claiming  that  extemporaneous  prayer  was  in- 
herently of  a  higher  order  than  set  forms  as  proceeding  from  the 
direct  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.70 

Few  wished  to  have  their  children  come  under  the  influence 
of  Methodist  enthusiasm.  It  displeased  parents  to  hear  such 
language  from  them  after  their  having  been  to  hear  John  Wes- 
ley :  "God  has  pardoned  my  sins  through  the  blood  of  the  atone- 
ment." They  complained  not  without  a  cause :  "that  the  minds 
of  youth  should  be  imbued  with  this  tincture  of  fanaticism  be- 
fore they  know  how  to  distinguish  truth  from  falsehood,  when 
reason  is  beginning  to  dawn  and  the  passions  to  play,  is  an  evil, 
pregnant  with  most  fatal  consequences."71 

A  clergyman  accused  the  Methodists  of  preaching  that  the 
millennium  was  soon  to  come,  in  which  the  Methodists,  as  the 
saints,  were  going  to  live  in  peace  upon  the  earth.72  In  this  he 
misunderstood  Methodism  as  did  those  who  classed  the  Meth- 
odists with  Cotton  Mather  of  Boston,73  or  confounded  their 
enthusiasm  with  the  fanaticism  of  a  certain  Christian  George, 
who  after  claiming  to  be  a  prophet  in  North  Carolina,  shot  up 
the  town  where  he  lived,  killed  the  justice  of  the  peace,  indulged 
in  adultery,  etc.74 

Rumor  gained  in  intensity  as  it  traveled.  When  the  reports 
of  the  Methodists  reached  the  bishops  they  were  doubtless  ex- 
aggerated. The  bishops,  as  might  be  expected,  opposed  the 
current  enthusiasm.  On  the  frontispiece  of  Bishop  Gibson's 

69  Nightingale :  p.  258. 

70  Evans :  History  of  Enthusiasm,  pref.  p.  xv. 

71  Wills:  pp.  isoff. 

72  Letter  from  a  Clergyman  to  One  of  His  Parishioners,  p.  72ff. 

73  Evans :  Op.  tit.,  pref.,  p.  xix. 

74  Grey :  Serious  Address  to  Lay  Methodists,  appendix,  p.  22. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  29 

work,  Observations  of  Methodism,  is  a  picture  of  a  Methodist 
service,  in  which  are  faints,  love  making,  witches,  devils,  rabbits, 
and  the  like.  This  shows  the  episcopal  conception  of  Methodism 
in  some  degree,  but  it  is  nevertheless  quite  untrue  to  fact. 

In  this  same  work  the  bishop  attacks  the  Methodists  in  a 
more  orderly  fashion.  He  objects  to  the  flowery  language  used 
in  their  writings,  to  their  communications  with  God,  to  their 
extravagant  flights  and  illusions.75  Bishop  Lavington  was  not 
as  moderate  as  Gibson.  Of  this  enthusiasm  he  said :  "If  there 
be  anything  in  it  exceeding  the  power  of  nature,  known  or  secret; 
anything  beyond  the  force  of  distemper,  or  of  imagination  and 
enthusiasm  artfully  worked  up.  ...  I  see  no  reason  against 
concluding  that  it  is  the  work  of  some  evil  spirit;  a  sort  of 
magical  operation,  or  other  diabolical  illusion."76  The  Meth- 
odists never  forgave  Lavington  for  this  senseless  onslaught 
almost  wholly  unsupported  by  evidence.  Vincent  Perronet 
roundly  rebuked  the  bishop  and  declared  it  to  be  scandalous  that 
he  should  claim  the  emotions  of  the  Methodists  to  be  physical 
instead  of  spiritual.77 

In  spite  of  this  able  defense,  the  clergy  held  to  their  opinion. 
They  hated  the  intrusion  of  the  Methodist  preacher  into  sick 
rooms  where  the  patient  was  excited  with  new  terrors  or  with 
groundless  hopes.78  They  continued  to  think  of  conversion  as 
the  sum  of  a  number  of  bodily  passions ;  as  an  abnormality  tak- 
ing place  in  experience.79  They  still  insisted  that  enthusiasm 
was  a  danger  to  the  throne  as  puritanism  had  been  in  the  days 
of  Oliver  Cromwell;  and  as  such  they  maintained  that  it  ought 
to  be  suppressed  as  seditious.80  Certainly  Whitefield's  preach- 
ing tended  to  make  men  Dissenters  rather  than  Churchmen.81 

Thus  most  of  the  clergy  had  little  sympathy  with  enthu- 
siasm, and  many  opposed  it  openly.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  leading 


75P.  i7ff. 

76  Enthusiasm  of  Methodists  and  Papists  Compared,  p.  398. 

77  Third  Letter  to  Author  of  Enthus.  of  Meth.  and  Papists  Compared, 
passim. 

"Wills:  p.  100. 

79  Scott :  Op.  cit.,  p.  6. 

80  Roe  :  P.  289. 

81  Overton :  Evangelical  Revival  in  i8th  Century,  p.  154. 


30      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

cause  in  the  severance  of  Methodism  from  the  Church.  In  a 
contest  between  two  entirely  incompatible  ideals,  one  must  yield 
or  depart  from  the  other.  Neither  the  Churchmen  nor  the  Meth- 
odists would  yield. 

SECTION  III.    METHODIST  ATTEMPTS  TO  CHECK  EXTREME 
ENTHUSIASM 

One  cannot  but  surmise  that  John  Wesley  saw  the  situation, 
and  in  spite  of  his  inconsistent  stand  on  the  matter  of  enthu- 
siasm in  the  abstract,  was  determined  that  fanaticism  in  the 
concrete  should  not  dominate  his  societies. 

The  first  ultra-enthusiasts  to  trouble  the  early  Methodists 
were  the  French  Prophets.  These  sought  refuge  in  England 
after  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes.82  But  little  is 
known  of  them  until  the  year  1706.  In  that  year  three  French 
Camisards  came  to  England.  J.  Cavalier,  who  was  portrayed 
as  a  villain,  trickster,  and  scamp,  was  the  first.  Durant  Fage, 
"a  mechanic  who  gave  off  incoherent  stuff  for  prophecy,"  was 
the  second.  Elias  Marion,  who  was  a  good  actor,  was  the  third. 
All  three  were  said  to  be  Roman  Catholics.  They  joined  the 
French  church  at  Savoy.  They  played  fraud  upon  many,  and 
when  they  were  discovered  suddenly  received  orders  from  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  return  to  France.  Nevertheless,  they  had  a  good 
time  before  they  went,  for  they  were  lionized  and  rode  about 
in  coaches.83  Gilbert  Burnet  said  that  for  the  most  part  these 
"prophets"  were  poor,  ignorant  people.84  This  was  the  first 
appearance  of  the  French  Prophets ;  but  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Methodist  movement  they  came  into  greater  prominence. 

The  French  Prophets  not  only  tried  to  ingratiate  themselves 
into  the  good  graces  of  the  Methodists,  but  they  troubled  the 
Nonconformists  as  well.  Leger  narrates  the  following  in  this 
connection:  "Le  mercredi  precedent  a  la  cloture  d'une  reunion 
annuelle  de  Nonconformists,  d'eminents  predicateurs  harangua- 
ient  1'auditoire  quand  se  dresse  dans  la  tribune  une  femme  qui, 
depouillant  ses  vetements  de  dessus,  apparait  dans  une  sorte 

82  Leger:  Jeunesse  de  Wesley,  p.  421. 

88  Evans  :  Op.  cit.,  pp.  97-100. 

84  Quoted  in  Southey's  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  i,  p.  458. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  31 

d'effrayant  cilice;  elle  repand  des  cendres  sur  sa  tete;  elle  gesti- 
cule  comme  une  forcenee.  On  leve  la  seance;  on  expulse  les 
imposteurs ;  la  f oule  les  crible  de  boue,  et  s'amasse  si  nombreuse 
que  le  Sheriff  et  la  force  publique  sont  obliges  dans  la  soiree,  de 
la  disperse."85  The  Nonconformists  were  not  in  sympathy  with 
the  French  Prophets.  So  next  these  ''prophets"  turned  to  the 
Moravians.  They  sent  deputies  to  Zinzendorf.  But  the  Mo- 
ravians would  have  nothing  to  do  with  them  because  they 
neglected  the  sacrament.  So  in  1739  they  sought  to  convert 
the  Methodists  to  their  way  of  thinking.  The  enthusiasm  dis- 
played by  the  Methodists  had,  perhaps,  made  them  think  that 
the  Methodists  were  prepared  for  their  way  of  doing  things.86 

The  "prophets"  were  typical  enthusiasts.  To  come  under 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  they  put  themselves  into  pos- 
tures and  agitations.  They  shook  their  heads  and  whirled  in 
a  violent  manner  until  a  vertigo  seized  them.  They  threw  their 
hands  and  tossed  to  and  fro  beyond  the  wild  pranks  of  any  wild 
man,  "sometimes  whistling,  and  then  singing  and  laughing,  pip- 
ing, drumming,  screaming,  etc."  Such  were  their  actions. 

Their  doctrine  was  equally  radical.  The  millennium  was 
soon  to  come — in  fact,  within  a  few  months.  Christ  was  to 
appear  personally.87  The  French  church  denounced  these  men, 
but  their  influence  continued  to  spread.  Sir  Richard  Bulkley 
and  John  Lacy,  Esq.,  were  won  over  to  their  cause.  These  men 
set  themselves  to  the  work  of  prophesying,  and  said  that  Dr. 
Ems,  a  friend  of  theirs,  should  rise  from  the  grave  May  25, 
1708.  Many  came  out  to  see  this  resurrection.  When  the 
event  did  not  come  off,  the  people  were  inclined  to  doubt,  and 
to  overcome  this  doubt  Sir  Richard  and  his  friend  John  Lacy 
threatened  with  massacre  all  who  should  oppose  them.88 

Although  these  "prophets"  were  repudiated  by  some,  never- 
theless, some  believed  on  them.  Mr.  Hollis,  of  Wickham, 
favored  these  people  and  maintained  their  superiority  to  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  tried  to  influence  Charles 

^Jeunesse  de  Wesley,  p.  424. 
5  Southey :  vol.  i,  pp.  241-242. 

87  Evans  :  p.  100. 

88  Ibid.,  pp.  105-107. 


32      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Wesley  in  the  matter,  but  Charles  Wesley  was  too  good  a  Church- 
man to  be  thus  easily  influenced.  One  night  Charles  Wesley  slept 
with  Hollis.  While  they  were  undressing  "he  fell  into  violent 
agitations  and  gabbled  like  a  turkey  cock."  Charles  was  fright- 
ened, but  was  not  convinced;  for  he  began  to  exorcise  Hollis, 
saying,  "thou  deaf  and  dumb  devil,  come  out  of  him."  Hollis 
evidently  did  not  like  Charles  Wesley's  uncomplimentary  atti- 
tude toward  his  religious  experience,  so  he  soon  recovered  from 
his  fit  of  inspiration.89  A  little  later  on,  Charles  Wesley  had  a 
discussion  with  one  of  the  societies  concerning  these  French 
Prophets.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  discussion  Charles  Wesley 
asked,  "Who  is  on  God's  side?  Who  for  the  old  prophets 
rather  than  the  new?  Let  them  follow  me.  They  followed  me 
into  the  preaching  room."90  Thus  Charles  Wesley  and  his 
followers  definitely  broke  with  the  French  Prophets. 

The  attempts  to  influence  John  Wesley  were  as  great  a 
failure  as  with  his  brother  Charles.  He  went  to  hear  a  proph- 
etess who  leaned  back  in  her  chair  and  gabbled  very  much. 
She  gave  deep  sighs.  Wesley  was  far  from  being  impressed 
with  her.91  Then  he  came  out  in  public  and  denounced  these 
"prophets"  as  "properly  enthusiasts."  He  said  they  thought 
themselves  to  be  inspired  by  God,  but  were  not.  False,  im- 
aginary inspiration  is  enthusiasm.92  This  type  of  inspiration 
the  French  Prophets  had.  And  when  Wesley  was  accused  of 
favoring  the  French  Prophets,  the  question  was  bluntly  put  to 
him:  "Do  you  not  commend  the  French  Prophets?"  To  this 
question  he  categorically  answered,  "No."93 

In  this  way  the  leaders  of  Methodism  broke  absolutely  with 
these  French  Prophets  and  the  movement  was  saved  from  a 
fanaticism  of  the  extremest  type.  Fanaticism  might  easily  have 
spoiled  the  movement  for  any  practical  usefulness  right  at  its 
beginning. 

The  second  ultra  enthusiasts  to  trouble  Methodism  were 


89 Moore:  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  i,  p.  347. 

"Ibid.,  pp.  385-386. 

91  Southey :  vol.  i,  p.  242. 

"Ibid.,  p.  241. 

83  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  402. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  33 

of  a  different  sort.  They  were  Methodists;  namely,  Thomas 
Maxfield  and  George  Bell.  Both  had  been  permitted  to  preach 
by  Wesley.  Maxfield  was  put  in  charge  of  the  Methodist  society 
at  the  Foundry  for  a  season.  Not  long  after  Wesley  left  the 
Foundry,  and  some  of  the  people  claimed  dreams,  visions,  and 
impressions,  as  they  thought,  from  God.  Maxfield  did  not  dis- 
courage, but  rather  encouraged  them.  He  believed  that  they  were 
signs  of  the  highest  grace.  .Wesley  at  once  took  a  position 
emphatically  opposed  to  this  type  of  enthusiasm.94  He  told 
Maxfield  plainly  that  these  inner  emotions,  mysticism,  would 
not  be  tolerated.  He  condemned  screaming,  unintelligible 
words,  etc.  The  upshot  of  the  whole  matter  was  that  Maxfield 
left  the  movement.95 

Wesley  had  difficulty  in  the  matter.  The  kind  of  people 
who  composed  this  earlier  Methodist  movement  was  such  as 
would  be  prone  to  follow  enthusiasm  of  Maxfield's  type.  It 
had  seized  a  hold  upon  Methodism.  One  hundred  and  six 
members  left  the  society  at  the  Foundry  when  Maxfield  went 
out.96  At  that  same  time  there  was  a  decrease  in  the  total  mem- 
bership of  the  Methodist  societies  from  about  2,800  to  2,200. 
Wesley  attributed  this  in  part  to  the  work  of  Maxfield.97 

George  Bell  was  a  friend  of  Maxfield.  Of  the  two  he  was 
the  more  fanatical.  His  admirers  professed  the  gift  of  healing. 
They  attempted  to  cure  blindness  and  to  raise  the  dead.98  Bell 
prophesied  the  end  of  the  world.  Near  Saint  Luke's  Hospital, 
on  February  28,  1763,  he  was  arrested  and  committed  to  prison. 
Wesley  saw  to  it  that  he  left  Methodism.  Southey  called  him 
an  "ignorant  enthusiast"  who  became  an  "ignorant  infidel."  He 
died  at  a  ripe  old  age,  posing  as  a  reformer.99 

Wesley  in  this  way  broke  with  these  two  fanatics  regardless 
of  what  it  might  cost  him.  He  thought  them  full  of  self-conceit, 
stubborn,  and  impatient  of  contradiction.100  It  was  an  act  of 


94  Jour.,  vol.  v,  p.  ii. 

95  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  535ff. 

96  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  40. 
91  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  155- 

98  Methodist  Magazine,  1790,  p.  42. 
98  Jour.,  vol.  v,  p.  9,  note  iii. 
100  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  54- 


34      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

wisdom  and  statesmanship  for  Wesley  to  see  clearly  enough  to 
rid  his  movement  of  such  men  as  these.  We  cannot  agree  with 
Hampson,  when  he  stated  that  Wesley  gave  too  much  encourage- 
ment to  these  enthusiasts.101  He  did  not.  He  put  them  out, 
and  thus  saved  Methodism  from  becoming  weak  with  fanaticism 
and  ultra  radicalism. 

SECTION  IV.     METHODISM  AND  MYSTICISM 

Methodism  met  enthusiasm  in  yet  one  other  form — mysti- 
cism. This  had  to  be  met  and  dealt  with.  In  1739,  upon  return- 
ing to  Fetter  Lane,  Wesley  found  that  Philip  Henry  Molther, 
private  tutor  to  the  son  of  Count  Zinzendorf,  had  been  talking 
to  his  people  and  confusing  them;  so  that  they  were  ready  to 
deny  all  religion.102  The  teaching  that  was  making  for  all  of 
this  confusion  was  the  Moravian  doctrine  of  "stillness."  Wes- 
ley said  that  the  Moravians  owned  they  never  had  a  living  faith. 
They  were  going  to  be  "still"  until  they  gained  it.  They  taught 
that  one  should  leave  off  the  means  of  grace;  stay  away  from 
church;  cease  to  communicate;  stop  reading  the  Bible;  have  no 
prayer  in  any  form  at  all;  until  this  living  faith  should  come.103 
Wesley  defined  "stillness"  by  saying  "that  a  man  cannot  attain 
to  salvation  by  his  own  wisdom,  strength,  righteousness,  good- 
ness, merits,  or  works;  that  therefore,  he  applies  to  God  for 
it.  ...  and  thus  quietly  waits  for  his  salvation."104 

Wesley  rejected  absolutely  this  doctrine  of  "stillness."  He 
had  a  conversation  with  Molther  and  stated  categorically  his 
opposition.  He  believed  it  was  right  to  go  to  church;  to  com- 
municate; to  fast;  to  use  as  much  private  prayer  as  he  could; 
to  read  the  Scripture.  This  was  a  definite  stand  against  the 
Moravians  and  for  the  Established  Church.105  Wesley  told 
the  Moravians  plainly  that  they  violated  the  law  of  God  and 
disobeyed  Him.106  At  his  early  morning  band  meetings  he  took 
up  this  subject  in  a  systematic  manner  and  urged  his  followers 

101' Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  131. 
™~  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  3i2ff. 

103  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  344. 

104  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  258. 

105  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  330. 
10fi  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  23. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  35 

to  obey  the  ordinances  of  God.  He  claimed  that  God  com- 
manded men  to  search  the  Scriptures.  He  asserted  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  a  means  of  grace  and  that  no  grace  could 
be  obtained  unless  one  partook  of  it.  No  sense  of  fitness  was 
required,  but  only  a  sense  of  unworthiness.107  With  such 
opinions  as  these  there  could  be  no  harmony  between  Wesley 
and  the  Moravians. 

July  1 6,  1740,  there  was  a  debate  lasting  until  eleven  o'clock 
at  night  with  the  Moravians  of  Fetter  Lane.  At  its  conclusion 
Wesley  remarked,  "this  place  is  taken  for  the  Germans."108 
But  there  was  no  decision  reached;  for  a  few  days  later  he  de- 
clared that  Moravian  assertions  were  contrary  to  the  Word  of 
God.  He  called  upon  all  who  agreed  with  him  to  leave  Fetter 
Lane.  About  eighteen  or  so  followed  him.109  These  followers 
from  Fetter  Lane  met  at  the  Foundry  and  there  organized  on 
July  23,  I740.110 

The  separation  from  the  Moravians  was  now  complete. 
Wesley  seemed  to  have  seen  his  danger.  He  accused  the  Mora- 
vians of  leaning  on  the  authority  of  modern  mysticism.111  He 
felt  that  the  Moravians  were  a  menace  to  the  Church,  because 
they  prevented  people  from  attending  the  Church.112 

Because  Wesley  had  visited  the  Moravians  and  learned  their 
tenets,  it  was  assumed  by  writers  of  the  Church  that  he  was  one 
of  them.  This  hurt  Methodism;  so  when  he  broke  with  the 
Moravians  this  opinion  had  to  give  way.113  And  people  did 
not  think  well  of  the  Moravians.  Henry  Rimus  pictured  them 
in  an  extensive  narrative  as  being  fanciful  and  full  of  mys- 
ticism.114 Bishop  Gibson  said  that  the  Moravians  decried  all 
moral  law  as  not  being  a  part  of  Christianity;  all  human  quali- 
fications for  the  ministry ;  all  human  helps  toward  the  conversion 
and  conviction  of  sinners.  He  concluded  that  the  Methodists 


07  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  356-362. 

08  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  368. 

09  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  370. 

0  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  371. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  490!?. 
'2  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  176. 

3  Evans  :  p.  109. 

4  Candid  Narrative,  passim. 


36      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

went  to  learn  these  opinions.115  Now  that  the  Methodists  had 
left  the  Moravians  they  could  not  be  accused  of  indulging  in 
mysticism.  Wesley  hereafter  was  very  careful  to  keep  his 
skirts  clear  from  any  form  of  mysticism.  When  a  very  old  man, 
he  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Walter  Churchey,  and  mentioning  his 
brother's  hymns,  said,  "Those  of  them  that  savour  a  little  of 
mysticism  I  have  rather  corrected  or  expunged."  116 

Thus  have  we  seen  the  cordial  dislike  of  the  clergy  and 
Church  for  any  form  of  enthusiasm.  The  Methodists  were 
classed  as  enthusiasts.  The  fact  that  they  ejected  forms  of  enthu- 
siasm from  their  midst,  as  in  the  case  of  the  French  Prophets, 
Thomas  Maxfield,  George  Bell,  and  the  mysticism  of  the  Mora- 
vians; the  fact  that  they  kept  their  movement  comparatively 
free  from  such  fanaticism  seemed  not  to  be  maturely  considered 
by  the  clergy.  They  were  enthusiasts,  and  that  was  an  end  to  it. 
The  two  groups,  the  Methodists  and  the  Churchmen,  had  two 
radically  different  points  of  view.  Their  ideas  of  religion  were 
different.  So  long  as  they  remained  so  both  groups  could  not 
remain  in  the  Established  Church  at  the  same  time.  Either  the 
Church  must  be  disrupted,  or  else  one  group  must  leave  it.  The 
latter  happened. 

115  Observations  Upon  the  Conduct  of  Methodists,  p.  7. 
118  Letters  in  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  87. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  37 

CHAPTER  III 
METHODIST  DOCTRINE 

WE  have  seen  that  the  outlook  of  the  Methodists  in  the 
eighteenth  century  was  peculiar.  They  saw  the  world  around 
them  hastening  to  destruction,  and  heard  the  insistent  call  to  save 
men  from  the  wrath  to  come.  Their  theology  and  doctrine,  there- 
fore, were  neither  allegorical  nor  speculative,  but  entirely  prac- 
tical. Indeed,  when  Jacob  Behmen  treated  the  Lord's  Prayer  in 
a  highly  allegorical  manner,  John  Wesley  denounced  his  method 
of  interpretation.1 

SECTION  I.    ORIGINAL  SIN 

The  Methodists  accounted  for  the  evil  in  the  world  by  adopt- 
ing Augustine's  theory  of  the  universal  corruption  of  human 
nature,  generally  termed  original  sin,  which  is  distinctive  of 
Western  Theology.2 

This  concept  was  naturally  based  on  the  biblical  narrative 
of  the  Fall  through  the  sin  of  Adam.3  Wesley  saw  the  depravity 
of  man  in  the  universal  presence  of  pain  and  suffering.  Sin 
came  into  the  world  because  Adam  chose  evil  rather  than  good, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  curse  pronounced  upon  him,  pain  fol- 
lowed as  a  natural  consequence.  Sin  brought  suffering,  as  the 
pains  of  childbirth  testify,  and  in  the  train  of  suffering  came 
death.  By  the  mercy  of  God  a  way  of  escape  came  through 
Christ ;  but  in  opposition  to  the  prevailing  Calvinism,  the  Meth- 
odists declared  that  the  offered  salvation  was  open  for  all  to 
accept.4 

This  sin  which  came  in  through  Adam's  fall  continued  to 
grow.  In  Noah's  time,  when  nations  appeared  such  as  the  Egyp- 
tians, Greeks,  Jews,  Indians,  and  Asiatics,  they  were  wicked, 
and  Roman  poetry  showed  the  evil  of  the  Roman  people. 

1  Divinity  and  Philosophy  of  Jacob  Behmen,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  7°5- 

2  Bradburn :  Methodism  Set  Forth,  p.  7. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  6. 

4  Sermon,  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  31  ff- 


38      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Mohammedans,  Popish,  and  Protestant  people  were  evil.  Uni- 
versal misery  was  at  once  the  consequence  and  the  proof  of  this 
universal  corruption.5  Sin  extended  over  the  whole  earth, 
for  Wesley  declared  that  the  people  of  to-day  were  just  as  de- 
praved by  nature  as  they  were  before  the  flood.  If  they  were  not 
educated;  if  they  knew  not  of  the  grace  of  God,  they  could  be 
likened  unto  animals.  Wesley  said,  "We  bear  the  image  of  the 
devil  and  tread  in  his  steps."  If  one  would  not  admit  this  utter 
proneness  to  evil  he  thought  as  the  heathen  did.  If  one  frankly 
admitted  this  he  was  Christian  in  his  thinking.  To  know  this 
moral  ailment  was  the  only  method  of  opening  the  way  for  a 
cure.6 

The  pleasant  writings  of  the  past  about  man  were  all  wrong. 
To  appreciate  man's  true  position,  one  must  say  with  the  psalm- 
ist that  he  was  "shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  con- 
ceive me."  7 

Such  was  Wesley's  idea  of  original  sin.  He  himself  was 
loath  to  use  the  term  "total  depravity" ;  but  that  is  just  what  he 
meant.8  Man  was  utterly  depraved  and  save  for  the  grace  of 
God  there  was  no  hope.  He  was  utterly  dependent  upon  God  to 
get  out  of  this  corrupt  state.  By  "being  inwardly  changed  by 
the  almighty  operation  of  the  spirit  of  God"  could  man  be  saved.9 
Wesley  was  thoroughgoing  in  his  idea  of  original  sin.  To 
an  opponent  he  said,  "Either  you  or  I  mistake  the  whole  of  Chris- 
tianity from  beginning  to  end !  Either  my  scheme  or  yours  is  as 
contrary  to  the  scriptural  as  the  Koran  is."  His  whole  system 
depended  upon  accepting  this  doctrine.10 

The  extended  treatment  of  this  doctrine  was  given  in  Wes- 
ley's The  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin.  This  is  one  of  his  master- 
pieces and  was  intended  to  answer  in  an  elaborate  manner  Dr. 
John  Taylor's  book,  The  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  which  was 
published  in  1750  and  had  its  third  edition  in  that  same  year.11 


5  Original  Sin,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  521. 
8  Works,  vol.  i,  pp.  395-399- 

7  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  352-354- 

8  Stevens :  History  of  Methodism,  vol.  ii,  p.  409. 

9  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  572. 

10  Letter  to  John  Taylor,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  669. 

11  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  492.    /  &JP* 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  39 

Dr.  Taylor  wrote  in  a  very  open-minded  manner  not  readily 
found  in  his  day.  He  urged  his  readers  to  seek  the  truth  above 
all  else,  and  rejected  the  use  of  proof-texts.12  Taylor  dealt  with 
this  doctrine  from  the  standpoint  of  a  rationalist,  maintaining 
that  this  doctrine  had  nothing  to  do  with  true  religion  and  that 
true  religion  could  stand  perfect  and  entire  without  it.13  He 
objected  that  it  was  injurious  to  the  God  of  nature  who  made 
us,  and  that  made  possible  the  placing  of  our  moral  responsibility 
for  our  sins  upon  the  shoulders  of  Adam  instead  of  our  own. 
Taylor's  argument  was  quite  anti-Wesleyan.14  He  also  asserted 
that  God  had  bestowed  upon  us  "gifts  and  mercy,  privileges  and 
advantages,  both  in  this  and  in  the  future  world  abundantly  be- 
yond the  reversing  of  any  evils  we  are  subjected  to  in  conse- 
quence of  Adam's  sin."  15 

Other  objections  were  made  to  this  doctrine.  Some  clergy 
objected  that  the  term  was  not  found  in  the  scriptures.  They 
reasoned  that  the  guilt  of  eating  the  forbidden  fruit  could  not 
pass  beyond  Adam  and  Eve,  and  that  the  consequences  of  their 
sin  could  not  pass  to  posterity.16  One  critical  churchman  with 
quite  a  modern  point  of  view  stated  that  "persons  of  a  certain 
temper  and  cast  of  mind,  can  see  deity  in  no  other  light  than  that 
of  an  almighty  tyrant;  and  love  to  consider  their  frail  fellow 
creatures  as  criminals  from  the  cradle.  .  .  .  Exit  is  animi 
tenor  in  rigorem  quendam  torvitatemque  natures,  duram  et  in- 
flexibilem;  affectusque  humanos  adimit."  1T  In  spite  of  all  these 
objections,  the  Methodists  insisted  that  mankind  was  quite  guilty, 
corrupt,  and  lost. 

SECTION  II.     JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH 

If  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  put  man  into  such  an  unhappy 
estate,  it  was  necessary  to  have  some  power  to  save  him  from 
this  eternal  damnation.  The  Methodists  explained  this  way  of 
escape  by  means  of  their  doctrine  of  "justification  by  faith." 

12  Taylor :  Original  Sin,  part  i,  passim. 

13  Ibid.,  Op  cit.,  p.  254. 

14  Ibid.,  pp.  256-259. 
"Ibid.,  p.  63. 

16  Letter  from  a  Clergyman  to  One  of  His  Parishioners,  p.  7. 

17  Essay  on  Character  of  Meth.,  p.  57. 


40      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

The  whole  background  for  the  understanding  of  this  doctrine  is 
that  of  the  complete  fall  of  man.18 

Justification  by  faith  was  no  more  original  with  the  Meth- 
odists than  was  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Boehm  wrote  of  it 
as  early  as  1714  in  England  in  a  manner  almost  identical  with 
that  of  Wesley.19 

With  the  Methodists  "justification"  and  "salvation"  meant 
practically  the  same  thing  when  used  in  connection  with  "faith." 
"A  salvation  from  sin,  and  the  consequences  of  sin;  both  were 
often  expressed  in  the  word,  justification."20  This  salvation  was 
an  act  of  God  the  Father.  It  was  the  pardon  and  forgiveness  of 
sins,  and  not  being  actually  made  just  and  righteous.  That 
was  called  "sanctification."  21  Whatever  else  justification  might 
mean,  it  meant  a  present  salvation.  One  was  saved  from  the 
guilt  of  all  past  sin.  Being  saved  from  guilt,  one  was  saved  from 
fear;  being  saved  from  fear,  one  was  saved  from  the  power  of 
sin;  so  that  he  could  not  be  overcome  by  it.22  This  justification 
came  from  God  as  a  gift — "of  his  mere  grace,  bounty,  or  favor; 
his  free,  undeserved  favor;  favor  altogether  undeserved;  man 
having  no  claim  to  the  least  of  his  mercies."  23  He  who  wished 
to  be  justified  had  to  fulfill  a  condition.  He  had  to  believe  on 
Him  who  justified  the  ungodly.  This  believing  on  a  God  who 
justified  was  defined  as  faith  and  this  faith  was  the  only  instru- 
ment of  justification  or  salvation.24  This  belief,  then,  in  Christ 
and  that  through  Christ  one  should  be  saved,  brought  justifica- 
tion. It  was  not  speculation,  it  was  not  rationalism,  it  was  what 
the  Methodists  called  "a  disposition  of  the  heart,"  that  saved 
man.25  Conference  defined  justification  as :  "to  be  pardoned  and 
received  into  God's  favor;  into  such  a  state,  that  if  we  con- 
tinue therein,  we  shall  finally  be  saved."  26 

One  form  of  opposition  to  this  doctrine  centered  in  a  dis- 

18  Works,  vol.  i,  pp.  45-46. 

19  Doctrine  of  Justification,  pp.  5  and  14. 

20  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  16. 
*l  Ibid.,  p.  47. 

22  Sermon,  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  15. 

23  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  13. 

24  Ibid.,  pp.  49-50. 

25  Ibid.,  p.  14. 

28  Minutes  1744,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  194. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  41 

cussion  upon  "good  works."  Wesley  stated  that  "good  works" 
done  before  justification  did  not  count;  but  that  good  works  done 
after  justification  might  count;  because  they  were  done  out  of 
deference  to  Christ.27  He  also  made  it  clear  that  justification  by 
faith  did  not  go  against  holiness  and  good  works;  yet  he  did 
emphatically  declare  that,  "the  blood  of  Christ  alone  saved;  and 
not  'good  works.'  "  28  Bishop  Gibson  of  London  thought  that 
this  attitude  was  misleading.  In  a  Pastoral  Letter  of  -f/Jp  he 
said :  "I  hope  that  when  your  ministers  preach  to  you  of  justi- 
fication by  faith  alone,  which  is  asserted  in  the  strongest  manner 
by  our  Church,  they  explain  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  no 
doubt  upon  your  minds  whether  good  works  are  a  condition  of 
your  being  justified  in  the  sight  of  God."  29  He  then  asserted 
that  the  Established  Church  believed  in  justification,  but  that  it 
believed  in  good  works  too.  Another  time,  Gibson  asked  if  it  was 
not  carrying  things  too  far  when  the  Methodists  did  not  allow  a 
careful  and  sincere  observance  of  moral  duties  to  count  for  any- 
thing; for  the  insistence  upon  faith  alone  led  the  people  to  value 
these  duties  lightly,  and  to  think  that  they  were  not  a  part  of  the 
Christian  religion.30  Others  were  not  so  moderate  in  their  criti- 
cism, asserting  that  the  preaching  of  faith  without  works  by  the 
Methodists  was  without  any  warrant  in  the  Scripture.31  Rev. 
Mr.  Downes,  one  of  the  clergy,  went  even  farther  and  incorrectly 
said,  "The  Methodists  will  have  it  that  we  may  be  saved  by  faith 
in  Christ,  without  any  other  requisite  on  our  part ;  the  Scriptures 
make  a  gospel  obedience  and  holy  life  a  necessary  condition."  32 
An  argument  from  history  was  brought  forward  in  which  the 
writer  went  back  to  the  days  of  Cranmer  and  Gardiner,  saying 
that  the  homily  on  this  subject  did  not  intend  "to  magnify  too 
highly  the  efficacy  of  faith,  or  deprecate  too  much  the  necessity 
of  good  works."  33  The  Churchmen  felt  that  disregarding  good 
works  would  lead  the  people  to  think  altogether  too  lightly  of 


27  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  49. 

"Ibid.,  p.  16. 

29  Op.  cit.,  pp.  27-28. 

80  Gibson :  Obs.  of  Conduct  of  Methodists,  p.  9. 

31  Haddon  Smith :  Methodistical  Deceit,  p.  19. 

32  Methodism  Examined,  p.  31. 

83  Principles  and  Practices  of  Meth.,  p.  69. 


42      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

their  moral  duties.34  Dr.  Free  urged  the  fact  against  the  Meth- 
odists that  they  differed  from  St.  James,  who  taught  that  faith 
without  works  was  dead  and  produced  no  salvation.  The  Meth- 
odists said  that  faith  alone  produced  a  salvation  that  was  quite 
alive.35 

This  difference,  however,  between  the  Churchmen  and  the 
Methodists  regarding  the  matter  of  justification  through  faith 
was  more  seeming  than  real.  Methodists,  as  will  appear  from 
their  statements  above,  did  not  reject  good  works;  even  asserting 
that  he  who  was  justified  would  surely  do  good  works.  What 
they  did  insist  upon  was  that  good  works  did  not  come  first; 
faith  alone  was  the  only  means  of  justification.  And  so  great 
was  their  emphasis  upon  the  place  of  faith,  that  the  clergy 
inferred  that  the  Methodists  took  a  negative  attitude  toward 
good  works.  There  was  no  real  difference ;  but  only  a  misunder- 
standing between  the  Methodists  and  the  Churchmen  on  this 
doctrine.  By  faith  in  Christ,  and  faith  alone,  could  one  be  set 
free  from  his  original  sin  and  gain  salvation. 

SECTION  III.     THE  NEW  BIRTH 

Justification  was  the  great  work  that  God  did  for  the  Meth- 
odist in  forgiving  him  his  sins  while  the  New  Birth,  was  the  name 
given  to  the  work  that  God  did  in  the  Methodist  by  renewing  his 
fallen  nature.36  Justification  expressed  the  forgiveness  felt;  but 
the  new  birth  expressed  the  process  of  transformation  which 
took  place  in  his  life.  The  new  birth  was  based  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  original  sin.  "Why  must  we  be  born  again?"  questioned 
Wesley.  "Because,  due  to  the  fall  we  are  not  in  the  image  of 
God  and  we  ought  to  be.  Every  child  of  Adam  is  spiritually 
dead.  He  must  be  born  again."  37  This  experience  of  the  new 
birth  was  indispensable  for  salvation.  The  epitaph  on  Berridge's 
grave  summed  up  the  Methodist  position.  It  read : 

"Reader, 

Art  Thou  born  again? 
No    Salvation   without  a   New   Birth." 


34  Evans :  Hist,  of  Enthusiasm,  p.  118. 

35  Free :  Rules  for  the  Discovery  of  False  Prophets,  p.  xiii. 

36  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  399. 

37  Ibid.,  pp.  399-401. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  43 

The  concepts  contrasting  the  once  born  man  with  the  twice 
born  man  still  hold  a  large  place  in  modern  thought.  Francis 
W.  Newman  says :  "God  has  two  families  of  children  on  this 
earth,  the  once  born  and  the  twice  born."  These  once  born  chil- 
dren do  not  see  God  as  a  strict  judge;  but  as  a  kind  Spirit  in  a 
beautiful  world.  When  they  approach  God,  there  is  little  or  no 
excitement,  and  no  inward  disturbance.38  Dr.  William  James 
associates  this  concept  of  the  once  born  man  with  the  religion 
of  healthy-mindedness,  and  says  of  it :  "The  advance  of  liberal- 
ism, so-called,  in  Christianity,  during  the  past  fifty  years,  may 
fairly  be  called  a  victory  of  healthy-mindedness  within  the 
Church  over  the  morbidness  with  which  the  old  hell-fire  theology 
was  more  harmoniously  related.  We  have  now  whole  congre- 
gations whose  preachers,  far  from  magnifying  our  consciousness 
of  sin,  seem  devoted  rather  to  making  little  of  it.  They  ignore, 
or  even  deny,  eternal  punishment,  and  insist  on  the  dignity  rather 
than  on  the  depravity  of  man.  They  look  at  the  continual  preoc- 
cupation of  the  old-fashioned  Christian  with  the  salvation  of  his 
soul  as  something  sickly  and  reprehensible  rather  than  admir- 
able." 39  This  represents  an  idea  common  in  our  day. 

But  Wesley  took  just  the  opposite  view.  He,  in  part,  ac- 
cepted the  idea  of  God  as  a  strict  judge;  he  preached  a  hell-fire 
theology;  he  damned  the  once  born  man,  and  would  admit  only 
the  twice  born  man  to  the  benefits  of  salvation.  When  sinners 
approached  God,  there  usually  was  much  excitement  and  inward 
disturbance.  The  "tyranny  of  the  twice  born"  experience  con- 
trolled early  Methodist  thinking. 

How  a  man  was  born  again,  no  Methodist  ventured  exactly 
to  tell,  for  it  was  a  mystical  experience  of  which  he  knew  only  the 
results.  His  eye  saw  God.  The  evidence  of  the  process  was  in 
the  fruits  which  the  transformed  life  bore.  This  showed  whether 
the  individual  had  new  life  from  God,  and  without  this  new  life, 
no  man  could  see  God ;  because  no  man  was  holy.  Without  this 
new  life,  no  man  was  happy;  for  no  wicked  man  could  possibly 


38  Quoted  in  James :  Varieties  of  Religious  Experience,  p.  80. 

39 William  James:   Varieties  of  Religious  Experience,  New  York,  1908, 


p.  91. 


44      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

be  happy.  This  new  birth  was :  "the  change  wrought  in  the  soul 
by  the  Almighty  Spirit  of  God  when  it  was  created  anew  in 
Christ  Jesus;  when  the  love  of  the  world  is  changed  for  the  love 
of  God."  40 

The  importance  which  the  Methodists  attached  to  this  new 
birth,  can  best  be  measured  by  the  retort  of  Wesley  to  those  who 
denied  its  essential  character ;  who  intimated  that  attention  to  the 
ordinances  of  God  and  regular  attendance  at  Church  and  the 
sacrament  were  more  needful.  To  all  who  reasoned  thus,  Wesley 
answered,  "all  this  will  not  keep  you  from  hell,  except  you  be 
born  again.  Go  to  Church  twice  a  day;  go  to  the  Lord's  Table 
every  week;  say  ever  so  many  prayers  in  private;  hear  ever  so 
many  good  sermons;  read  ever  so  many  good  books;  still  you 
must  be  born  again."  41  Here  the  new  birth  was  put  above  the 
Church  and  sacraments.  Some  of  the  clergy  could  not  under- 
stand how  one  could  attend  Church,  partake  of  the  sacrament, 
believe  in  the  word,  obey  the  commands  of  Christ,  and  still  be 
lost  unless  he  had  the  experience  of  the  new  birth. 

The  Churchman  accused  the  Methodist  of  asserting  that 
this  new  birth  took  place  at  a  precise  time.  He  who  experienced 
the  new  birth  could  tell  the  exact  hour  of  the  happening,  and  the 
Arminian  Magazine  was  said  to  be  full  of  instances,  wherein  the 
people  knew  the  exact  time  of  this  new  birth.42  "At  such  a  time, 
and  at  such  a  particular  place,  they  felt  the  spirit  rush  in  upon 
them  with  such  irresistible  force,  that  they  were  immediately 
translated  from  the  kingdom  of  Satan  to  the  kingdom  of  God. 
This  they  make  the  mark  of  the  new  birth;  and  will  allow  none 
to  be  regenerated  but  such  only  as  have  felt  this  extraordinary 
operation."  43  Other  Churchmen  also  thought  that  the  Meth- 
odist believed  himself  to  undergo  much  suffering  before  he  expe- 
rienced this  new  birth.  "They  are  represented  to  undergo  several 
purgations  and  lustrations  ere  the  new  birth  is  quite  formed. 
Most  of  them  feel  as  it  were,  a  burning  fire  within  them.  .  .  . 
when  this  severe  penance  is  at  an  end,  they  have  the  favor  of 

40  Sermon,  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  404!?. 

41  Ibid.,  p.  407. 
42 Wills:  p.  77- 
4*Meth.  Deceit,  p.  7. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  45 

being  told  by  their  teachers  that  they  are  then  regenerate  and 
incorruptible."  44  This  idea  was  flavored  with  enthusiasm;  so  the 
Churchman,  if  he  disliked  enthusiasm,  could  not  be  very  sym- 
pathetic toward  the  new  birth. 

This  new  birth  was  sometimes  pictured  as  supernatural. 
The  Methodists  were  accused  of  believing  in  "Miraculous  Con- 
version"; each  one  felt  himself  in  duty  bound  to  go  out  and 
preach.  Wesley  denied  all  of  this,  claiming  that  no  more  than 
one  in  five  hundred  had  this  call  to  preach.  Rev.  Mr.  Potter  of 
Norwich  was  told  by  him  that  the  Methodists  did  not  believe  in 
miraculous  conversion  any  more  than  to  think  that  all  conversion 
in  its  last  analysis  was  miraculous.45  Downes  in  Methodism 
Examined  accused  the  Methodists  of  treating  the  subject  of  con- 
version as  though  all  conversions  were  of  the  nature  of  St.  Paul's 
and  the  other  first  converts  to  Christianity;  and  "as  if  the  signs 
of  it  were  frightful  tremors  of  the  body,  and  convulsions  and 
agonies  of  the  mind  arising  from  a  sense  of  original  sin,  and  the 
corruption  of  human  nature :  the  Scriptures  set  it  forth  as  a  work 
graciously  begun  and  carried  out  by  the  blessed  spirit  in  conjunc- 
tion with  our  rational  powers  and  faculties;  and  the  signs  of  it 
to  be  a  sincere  and  universal  obedience  to  the  laws  and  precepts 
of  the  gospel."  46  Here  the  two  views  of  the  new  birth  were 
contrasted.  When  the  Methodist  urged  the  new  birth  as  a  doc- 
trine to  be  accepted  on  the  basis  of  miracle,  the  Churchman  very 
properly  asserted  that  a  doctrine  could  not  be  bolstered  up  with 
an  unproved  miracle.  He  demanded  the  proof  and  made  an 
appeal  to  reason.47  The  Churchman  thought  of  the  new  birth 
in  intellectual  terms ;  while  the  Methodist  thought  it  to  be  a  vivid 
religious  experience  in  his  life  to  which  he  gave  the  name  "new 
birth". 

Still  other  clergy  felt  that  the  good  things  which  the  Meth- 
odists claimed  to  enjoy  under  the  influence  of  the  new  birth,  were 
found  within  the  Church  as  well  as  with  the  Methodists ;  so  they 


44  Evans :  History  of  Enthusiasm,  p.  133, 

45  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  426. 

46  P.  33- 

47  Green :  Principles  and  Practices  of  Meth.,  p.  15. 


46      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

said  the  Methodists  misapplied  the  term  new  birth  for  some- 
thing already  extant  within  the  Church.48 

The  point,  however,  over  which  the  clergy  waxed  warmest 
was  the  relationship  of  the  new  birth  to  baptism.  Dr.  Potter 
claimed  that  baptism  was  the  first  part  of  the  new  birth,  while 
Wesley  flatly  denied  that  baptism  was  any  vital  part  to  the  new 
birth;  it  was  only  an  outward  sign  of  new  birth.  The  new 
birth  itself  was  an  inward  change  from  unholy  to  holy  tempers.49 
Orthodox  Churchmen  looked  upon  this  as  a  departure  from  the 
true  doctrine  of  baptism.  They  inferred  that  the  Methodist 
placed  his  hopes  of  heaven  upon  feelings  and  impressions,  rather 
than  upon  baptism.  The  idea  of  the  new  birth  was  contrary 
to  the  idea  of  baptism,  when  the  claim  was  made  that  one 
could  experience  the  new  birth  after  baptism ;  for  baptism  itself 
was  supposed,  according  to  the  clergy,  to  be  a  kind  of  new 
birth.50  Bishop  Gibson  reminded  the  Methodists  that  in  the 
baptismal  service  of  the  Established  Church,  the  phrase  "a  death 
unto  sin,  and  a  new  birth  unto  righteousness"  was  used.51  He 
also  told  the  people  that  he  hoped,  "when  your  ministers  preach 
to  you  doctrines  of  regeneration  or  being  born  again  of  the  spirit, 
as  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament ;  they  do  not  tell  you  it  must 
be  instantaneous,  or  inwardly  felt  at  the  very  time.  .  .  .Life 
is  affected  by  degrees."  52  Another  writer  brought  forward  the 
argument  that  a  child  could  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  at  baptism, 
and  yet  not  know  of  it.  Hence  the  claim  for  the  immediate 
power  and  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  a  "mere  senseless, 
enthusiastic  notion."  This  held  true  of  the  adult  as  well  as  the 
child  and  immediate  communion  was  not  needful  for  regenera- 
tion. Obedience  to  the  Scripture  would  work  this.  Therefore 
the  administration  of  sacrament,  and  no  mere  notion  of  imme- 
diate communication,  regenerated  men.53  Now  the  Methodists 
were  thought  to  deny  that  baptism  coincided  \vith  regeneration, 


48  The  Question,  p.  26. 

49  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  424. 

50  Wills:  p.  19. 

51  Pastoral  Letter,  1739,  p.  13. 

52  Ibid.,  p.  2. 
53 Roe:  p.  8ff. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  47 

or  that  it  consists  in  reformation.54  This  idea  of  theirs  came  not 
from  the  Bible,  but  from  the  Quakers.55  To  hold  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin,  and  still  to  deny  the  efficacy  of  baptism  made  per- 
plexing work  in  Methodist  theology  for  the  Churchman.56 
Wesley  dismissed  all  of  these  arguments  as  "High  Church",  and 
still  insisted  that  the  new  birth  was  the  real  essential.57 

The  question  of  baptismal  regeneration  did  not  come  prom- 
inently into  the  foreground  at  the  time  of  the  English  Reforma- 
tion. Neither  was  the  Westminster  Confession  thoroughgoing 
when  it  said  that  in  baptism  were  conferred  "ingrafting  into 
Christ,  regeneration,  and  remission  of  sins."  Such  baptism  bene- 
fited only  the  elect.  For  those  not  elect,  it  could  do  nothing.58 
Luther  and  Melanchthon  held  that  baptism  remitted  both  actual 
and  original  sin,  and  therefore  all  infants  who  were  baptized  and 
did  not  sin,  were  saved.  But  the  English  formularies  left  un- 
decided the  question  whether  the  efficacy  of  baptism  depended 
upon  prevenient  grace  enabling  one  to  have  faith  and  repentance, 
in  which  case  the  sacrament  was  a  symbol,  or  whether  the  efficacy 
depended  upon  a  sacramental  act.  Baptism  was  considered 
necessary  by  all,  but  the  precise  method  of  its  operation  was  not 
looked  into.  The  Methodists  could  not  view  baptism  in  the  sense 
of  opus  operatum,  and  this  caused  the  above  controversy.  Had 
the  Church  made  a  clearer  statement  of  this  matter,  this  discus- 
sion could  not  have  taken  place,  and  she  would  have  saved  herself 
from  the  tribulations  of  that  later  and  more  celebrated  discus- 
sion— The  Gorham  Case.59 

Bishop  Lavington,  one  of  the  most  bitter  opponents  of  the 
Methodists  was  more  pronounced  in  his  objections.  He 
said  that  the  Jesuit  Nieremberg  taught  the  new  birth  as  did 
the  Methodists.  The  Methodists  claimed  it  to  be  instantaneous : 
so  did  Saint  Teresa,  Saint  Ignatius,  and  others.  They  had  the 


54 Wills:  p.  75- 

55  Letter  from  Clergyman    .    .    .    to  Meth.,  p.  2. 

56  Ibid.,  p.  6. 

"Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  434. 

58  Stephens   and    Hunt :    History   of  the   Church    of  England,   vol.    viii, 
part  i,  p.  319. 

69  Ibid.,  p.  320. 


48      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

same  doctrine  as  did  the  Methodists.     Hence  this  was  a  popish 
doctrine.60 

By  thus  comparing  the  attitude  of  the  Methodists  and 
Churchmen  toward  this  doctrine  of  the  new  birth,  one  sees  not 
so  much  difference  in  regard  to  the  facts  dealt  with,  as  a  mani- 
festation of  two  quite  distinct  types  of  mind  that  could  not  be 
harmonized. 

SECTION  IV.    CHRISTIAN  PERFECTION 

Some  phase  of  the  idea  and  the  ideal  of  Christian  perfec- 
tion has  had  a  place  in  the  Christian  thought  of  every  genera- 
tion. It  has  stood  for  a  conception  of  the  completeness  and 
blessedness  of  the  Christian  experience  which  has  attracted  both 
orthodox  and  sectarian  alike.  "Each  of  the  main  theological 
systems  has  preserved,  in  the  form  of  doctrine,  experience,  or 
tradition,  one  or  other  of  the  aspects  of  Christian  perfection 
presented  in  the  New  Testament;  but  there  is  no  consecutive 
history  of  the  doctrine."  Augustine  admitted  that  perfection 
was  possible  because  divine  grace  was  irresistible.  At  the  same 
time  he  denied  that  this  perfection  took  place  in  this  life;  for 
the  will  of  God  appointed  that  sin  should  persist  in  the  best  of 
Christians  to  promote  humility.  Luther  and  Calvin  followed 
Augustine  in  teaching  that  perfection  is  never  found  in  this 
present  life.  Nevertheless,  the  Christian  had  the  promise  from 
God  that  he  would  finally  be  delivered  from  all  sin.  Beyond  this, 
the  Reformation  leaders  did  not  venture  with  any  degree  of 
positiveness  or  precision.  Neither  was  the  Church  of  England 
lucid  in  its  statement  of  this  doctrine.  Part  of  the  Prayerbook 
indicated  that  Christian  perfection  consisted  in  perfect  love  im- 
plying a  cleansing  from  all  sin;  and  that  it  was  possible  for  all 
sin  to  die  in  a  person  in  this  life.  The  Church  sought  to  compre- 
hend both  the  Arminian  and  the  Calvinistic  views.  The  High 
Churchmen  of  the  Non juror  type  favored  the  Arminian  posi- 
tion, and  since  Wesley  came  by  ancestry  from  this  stock,  he  came 
under  the  influence  of  this  teaching  and  held  to  Christian  per- 
fection from  the  Arminian  point  of  view.  This,  in  general, 


60  Enthusiasm    .    .    .   pp.  22-28. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  49 

was  the  ancestry  of  the  Doctrine  of  Christian  Perfection  as  held 
by  the  Methodists.61 

After  the  Methodist  had  been  pardoned  by  God  (justifica- 
tion), after  he  had  been  transformed  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
be  able  to  commune  with  God  (regeneration),  there  came  a  third 
step.  He  who  had  been  justified  by  faith,  and  regenerated  in 
his  life,  could  be  purified.  Such  purification  was  called  "sanctifi- 
cation."  The  doctrine  of  sanctification  was  said  to  be  "the 
grand  depositum  which  God  has  lodged  with  the  people  called 
Methodists."62  The  conference  explained  it  "to  be  renewed  in 
the  image  of  God,  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness,"  and  faith 
was  the  instrument  for  accomplishing  this.63 

"To  be  renewed  in  the  image  of  God"  was  a  heavy  claim  to 
make.  It  was  never  brought  forward  very  emphatically  by  the 
Methodists,  for  conference  urged  the  individual  to  make  no 
claim  to  sanctification.  If  any  did  claim  this,  his  fellow  Meth- 
odists were  to  do  a  little  investigating  into  his  life  before  freely 
accepting  his  claim.64  Not  many  were  sanctified  throughout; 
but  just  before  death  some  were  made  perfect  in  love.  This  did 
not  mean  that  one  was  saved  from  all  sin.  It  was  "the  superla- 
tive degree  of  justification."65  Neither  did  the  Methodists  claim 
to  find  any  concrete  cases  of  sanctification  in  the  Scriptures; 
for  the  modesty  of  the  apostles,  so  they  explained,  came  to  the 
forefront.  The  apostles  were  too  modest  to  record  themselves 
as  being  sanctified,  having  too  much  sense  in  dealing  with  this 
subject,  lest  they  should  give  the  early  Christians  inflated  heads.66 
What  was  sanctification?  The  Methodists  were  vague  in  their 
answer,  always  handling  this  theme  very  gingerly.  They  came 
to  no  pronounced  doctrine,  because  that  would  lead  to  fanaticism. 

Yet  one  part  of  the  main  doctrine  of  sanctification  they 
treated  in  detail.  This  was  in  the  form  of  the  doctrine  of 
"Christian  Perfection." 


61  Frederic  Platt :  Christian  Perfection,  in  Hastings'  Ency.  of  Rcl.  and 
Ethics,  vol.  ix,  pp.  728-733. 
62Eayrs:  p.  173. 

63  Minutes  of  i?44,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  197. 
M  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  38. 
™Ibid.,  p.  34. 
"Ibid.,  p.  37- 


50      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

In  the  Conference  of  1744,  the  first  question  was  asked 
about  perfection :  "What  is  implied  in  being  a  perfect  Chris- 
tian?" Conference  answered:  "The  loving  God  with  all  our 
heart,  and  mind,  and  soul."67  This  sounded  well;  but  was  not 
a  clear  answer,  for  the  people  asked  about  the  doctrine  of  per- 
fection so  much  that  Wesley,  in  1766,  was  obliged  to  write  a 
treatise  concerning  it  entitled,  A  Plain  Account  of  Christian 
Perfection.™  Josiah  Tucker,  no  friend  of  the  Methodists,  rightly 
said  that  Wesley  did  not  think  this  out  alone;  but  borrowed 
from  William  Law,  the  well  known  mystic  of  that  time.69  Wes- 
ley made  much  more  of  this  doctrine,  however,  than  did  Law; 
for  even  in  his  old  age,  writing  to  Adam  Clarke,  he  urged  that 
if  any  preacher  or  leader  among  the  Methodists  should  speak 
against  this  doctrine  they  should  be  officers  no  more.70 

Wesley  spoke  of  perfection  in  a  negative  as  well  as  in  a 
positive  sense.  Negatively  Christians  were  not  perfect  in  the 
sense  that  "they  are  not  perfect  in  knowledge.  They  are  not 
free  from  ignorance,  no,  nor  from  mistake.  We  no  more  expect 
any  man  to  be  infallible  than  to  be  omniscient.  They  are  not 
free  from  infirmities,  such  as  weakness  or  slowness  of  under- 
standing. .  .  .  from  such  infirmities  none  are  free  until  their 
(spirits  return  to  God."71  In  his  Plain  Account  of  Christian 
Perfection  the  subject  is  treated  in  a  positive  manner.  By  per- 
fection "we  mean  one  in  whom  is  'the  mind  which  was  in  Christ/ 
and  who  so  'walketh  as  Christ  also  walketh.'  ...  In  a  word, 
he  doeth  'the  will  of  God  on  earth  as  it  is  done  in  heaven.'  "72 
Wesley  went  even  farther,  when  he  continued,  "It  remains,  then, 
that  Christians  are  saved  in  this  world  from  all  sin,  from  all 
unrighteousness;  that  they  are  now  in  such  a  sense  perfect, 
as  not  to  commit  sin,  as  to  be  freed  from  evil  thoughts  and  evil 
tempers."73  But  this,  in  turn,  was  qualified  when  Wesley  re- 
peatedly stated,  that  there  was  no  such  perfection  in  this  life, 


67  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  496. 

68  Vide  Richard  Green :  The  Works  of  John  and  Charles  Wesley,  p.  134. 
"  History  of  the  Principles  of  Methodism,  p.  41. 

70  Tyerman :  vol.  iii,  p.  633. 

71  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  489. 

n  Christian  Perfection,  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  494ff. 
73  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  490. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  51 

as  excluded  involuntary  transgressions  resulting  from  igno- 
rance, and  inseparable  from  mortality.74  And  with  this  Wesley 
maintained  that  Christians  were  perfect  in  that  they  committed 
no  sin.  Even  though  the  apostles  committed  sin,  yet  it  was  not 
necessary  for  people  of  Wesley's  day  to  do  the  same.75 

Wesley's  treatment  of  this  doctrine  of  Christian  perfection 
was  not  clear  either  to  those  who  came  after  him  or  to  the  people 
of  his  own  day.  Stevens,  a  most  thorough  Methodist  historian, 
sought  to  clear  things  up  by  explaining,  "Perfection,  as  defined 
by  Wesley,  is  not  then  perfection,  according  to  the  absolute 
moral  law :  it  is  what  he  calls  it,  Christian  Perfection :  perfection 
according  to  the  new  moral  economy  introduced  by  the  atone- 
ment, in  which  the  heart  being  sanctified,  fulfills  the  law  by  love, 
and  its  involuntary  imperfections  are  provided  for,  by  that 
economy,  without  imputation  of  guilt,  as  in  the  case  of  infancy 
and  all  irresponsible  persons."76 

Many  theologians  of  Wesley's  day  did  not  distinguish  be- 
tween moral  perfection  and  Christian  perfection.  The  very  term 
"perfection"  as  used  in  connection  with  this  doctrine  added  to 
the  confusion,  while  the  Churchmen  outside  listened  with  no 
kind  ear  to  the  Methodists  as  they  claimed  to  do  the  will  of  God 
here  on  earth  as  it  was  done  in  heaven;  and  as  they  claimed  to 
be  incapable  of  sin.  They  saw  the  Methodists  to  have  the  same 
human  faults  as  themselves  and  so  were  inclined,  in  their  mis- 
understanding, to  look  upon  all  Methodists  claiming  perfection 
as  being  hypocrites.  The  criticism  was  sharp.  Rev.  John 
Hampson,  formerly  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Conference  him- 
self, said  that  perfection  was  no  part  of  the  possession  of  the 
primitive  Christians.  They  made  no  distinction  between  com- 
mon and  perfect  believers.77  Hampson  even  asserted  that  Wes- 
ley "never  could  be  persuaded  to  profess  perfection  himself," 
and  that  many  of  his  preachers  and  people  did  not  believe  a 
syllable  of  the  doctrine.  And  then  very  facetiously,  he  remarked 


74  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  168. 

75  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  48pff. 

76  Stevens :  Hist,  of  Meth.  vol.  ii,  p.  412. 
^  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  iii,  p.  55. 


52      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

that  "the  advocates  of  perfection  are  not  the  most  amiable  people 
in  Mr.  Wesley's  societies."78 

Bishop  Lavington  was  not  so  gentle  with  this  doctrine, 
calling  it  "that  summit  of  arrogance,  a  claim  of  unsinning  per- 
fection."79 Evans,  a  clerical  writer  against  the  Methodists, 
thought  that  the  Methodists  were  a  long  way  from  the  perfection 
which  they  claimed,  for  they  were  capable  of  sin  and  did  commit 
sin.80 

Wesley  based  his  doctrine  of  perfection  upon  Scripture: 
"According  to  this  apostle  [Peter]  then;  perfection  is  another 
name  for  universal  holiness ;  inward  and  outward  righteousness ; 
holiness  of  life,  arising  from  holiness  of  heart."81  He  bluntly 
said,  "In  conformity,  therefore,  both  to  the  doctrine  of  Saint 
John  and  the  whole  tenor  of  the  New  Testament,  we  fix  this 
conclusion;  A  Christian  is  so  far  perfect,  as  not  to  commit  sin."82 

It  is  here  that  Wesley's  confusion  is  explained.  He  relied 
upon  the  apostle  John  for  his  doctrine.  Now  Saint  John's  teach- 
ing is  not  always  consistent  on  this  subject.  John  says  that  he 
that  is  born  of  God  "sinneth  not."  He  also  clearly  states  that 
"whosoever  sinneth  hath  not  seen  Him,  neither  knoweth  Him."83 
John  here  declares,  that  true  Christians  do  not  sin.  And  yet 
on  the  other  hand,  he  assumes  that  men  do  sin,  for  he  provides 
u'an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ,  the  righteous,"  and 
•goes  on  to  add,  one  is  of  the  devil  if  he  loves  not  his  brother, 
and  is  doomed  to  destruction;  because  eternal  life  does  not  abide 
in  him.84  Thus  we  have  a  Scriptural  contradiction  which  in 
our  day  explains  the  matter  a  little  more  clearly.  But  in  Wes- 
ley's day,  no  orthodox  person  would  admit  that  one  Scripture 
could  contradict  another.  It  did  not  enter  into  the  thinking  of 
Christians.  When  Wesley  said  that  his  doctrine  of  perfection 
was  Scriptural,  he  was  quite  correct.  But  being  correct  did  not 
take  away  from  the  doctrine  any  of  its  inconsistencies  or  vague- 


78  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  iii,  p.  56. 

79  Enthusiasm  Detected,  p.  146. 

80  Hist,  of  Enthus.,  p.  118. 

81  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  169. 

82  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  489-490. 
83 1  John  iii.  6,  also  iii.  9. 

84  Ibid.,  ii.  i,  also  iii.  10,  also  iii.  15. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  53 

ness,  when  one  realized  that  it  was  based  upon  a  Scriptural 
contradiction.  The  doctrine  presents  an  ideal  on  the  one  hand, 
and  faces  an  actual  experience  in  life  on  the  other;  hence  its 
difficulty  in  making  itself  acceptable  or  understood. 

Misunderstandings  of  this  doctrine  existed  all  through 
Wesley's  life.  In  London,  this  doctrine  ran  to  extremes. 
Fitchett  lays  the  wild  actions  of  Bell  and  Maxfield  to  it.85 
S.  Parkes  Cadman  is  of  the  opinion  that  Maxfield  professed 
entire  sanctification,  and  hysterical  delusions  resulted  from  it.86 

In  conclusion,  one  should  note  that  Wesley  never  claimed 
perfection,  that  the  doctrine  has  always  caused  misunderstand- 
ing and  debate  from  the  time  it  was  first  put  forth  until  this  day. 
Cadman  seems  to  be  within  the  bounds  of  facts  when  he  says, 
"In  spite  of  his  avowals,  many  devout  Methodists  have  held  that 
while  these  higher  levels  are  divinely  authorized,  they  are  not 
always  humanly  possible."8 

SECTION  V.     THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  SPIRIT 
Aside  from  the  doctrines  that  were  concerned  in  the  Meth- 
odist scheme  of  salvation,  such  as  have  just  been  treated,  there 
were  other  doctrines  which  gave  trouble  to  the  clergy.     Among 
these  was  the  doctrine  of  the  "witness  of  the  Spirit." 

The  doctrine  of  the  "witness  of  the  Spirit,"  and  the  doctrine 
of  "assurance,"  which  is  a  corollary  to  it,  were  treated  in  a  modi- 
fied form  by  Thomas  Aquinas.    He  taught  that  one  could  ascer- 
tain whether  or  not  one  was  the  subject  of  divine  grace  by 
direct  revelation  from  God,  by  one's  self,  by  various  indications. 
But  he  felt  that  "various  indications"  and  "one's  self"  were 
uncertain  means  to  this  knowledge,  and  that  direct  revelation 
from  God  was  very  uncommon.     This  was  practically  saying 
that  one  could  not  know  whether  he  had  attained  unto  salvation 
or  not.     Luther,  on  the  other  hand,  denounced  the  notion  that 
the  believer  in  Christ  must  remain  uncertain  as  to  whether  or 
not  he  was  in  a  state  of  grace  or  sure  of  salvation.    Calvin,  too, 
gave  a  place  to  this  doctrine  in  the  Reformed  Church.     He 

Life  of  Wesley,  p.  362. 

86  Three  Religious  Leaders  of  Oxford,  p.  344- 

87  Ibid.,  p.  343- 


54      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

linked  the  doctrine  of  religious  certainty  closely  to  his  doctrine 
of  election.  Those  who  were  elect  did  enjoy  the  knowledge 
of  this  election,  and  so  had  an  assurance  of  salvation.  The 
"witness  of  the  Spirit"  took  on  a  more  mystical  color  with  the 
Quakers  in  connection  with  their  doctrine  of  "the  Inner  Light." 
This  "light"  was  the  witness  of  God  within  one's  self ;  a  reliable 
messenger  telling  the  believer  whether  or  not  he  was  saved. 
This  doctrine,  therefore,  was  not  peculiar  to  the  Methodists ;  but 
they  gave  it  a  new  life  by  asserting  that  it  was  "the  common 
privilege  of  all  believers/  \  and  not  something  experienced  by 
one  man  alone.88  It  was'the  instrument  to  test  the  validity  of 
the  whole  plan  of  salvation:  "God  telling  us  that  we  are  right 
in  his  sight."  Every  Methodist  was  exhorted  to  listen  to  the 
divine  voice  and  to  make  sure  that  he  had  its  approving  word  in 
his  heart.89 

From  this  doctrine  of  the  witness  of.  the  Spirit,  logically 
came  the  Methodist  doctrine  of  "assurance."  Assurance  simply 
taught  the  Methodist  that  since  he  had  received  the  experience 
of  justification,  regeneration,  and  perhaps  sanctification,  he 
might  be  sure  of  salvation;  indeed,  this  doctrine  had  for  its  pur- 
pose, the  assurance  of  salvation  to  the  individual.  It  was  the 
formal  way  of  expressing  the  conviction  which  every  man  going 
through  the  religious  experience  of  the  Methodist  type  had, 
namely,  the  conviction  that  all  was  well  between  his  God  and 
himself. 

This  doctrine  was  attacked  by  many  of  the  clergy  of  the 
Church  on  these  grounds:  The  Methodist  taught  that  a  man 
might  be  in  a  state  of  salvation  now,  and  know  himself  to  be  so. 
In  this  their  thoughtful  opponents  agreed  with  them.  But  when 
the  Methodist  added  that  a  man  might  be  sure  of  his  ultimate 
salvation,  he  was  asked  how  this  could  be  in  view  of  the  possi- 
bility of  his  falling  into  sin.  This  distinction  was  made  between 
what  was  termed  present  assurance  and  future  assurance?*  The 
clergy  had  no  sympathy  with  anything  that  seemed  to  them  to 

88  J.   G.   Tasker:    Christian   Certainty,   in   Hastings'  Ency.   of  Rel    and 
Ethics,  vol.  iii,  p.  325ff. 

89  Stevens:  vol.  ii,  p.  415. 

90  The  Question,  p.  2pff. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  55 

resemble  the  Calvinist  doctrine  of  "the  perseverance  of  the 
saints."  Yet  the  Methodists  were  more  opposed  to  this  doctrine 
as  set  forth  in  the  Canons  of  Dort  than  many  of  the  Churchmen. 
The  Methodists  rejected  any  idea  savoring  of  the  Calvinist  doc- 
trine of  "the  perseverance  of  the  saints,"  while  the  Church  left 
this  question  an  open  one.91  The  attack  by  the  clergy,  however, 
continued. 

One,  in  disgust  with  this  doctrine,  declared  it  was  pre- 
sumptuous for  the  Methodist  to  claim  the  certainty  of  salvation, 
for  it  filled  the  head  with  spiritual  pride.92  Another  was  quite 
incensed  and  called  the  doctrine  unspiritual,  quoting  Saint  Paul 
for  his  authority.  Paul  had  said  that  we  were  to  be  saved 
through  hope,  that  we  were  to  walk  by  faith  and  not  by  sight; 
and  here  were  these  Methodists  who  had  an  assurance  of  the 
whole  affair.93  Still  another  said  that  when  Paul  was  converted, 
he  still  continued  to  call  himself  the  chief  of  sinners  and  was 
none  too  sure  of  his  salvation;  but  with  the  Methodists  "the 
thing  is  absolutely  secure."94 

Thus  in  this  doctrine  there  was  misunderstanding.  The 
Methodists  simply  tried  to  phrase  the  conviction  which  they  be- 
lieved every  saved  man  can  and  does  have.  The  vagueness  of 
Methodist  statements  of  doctrine  led  the  Churchman  to  read 
more  into  the  phraseology  of  the  doctrine  than  the  Methodists 
put  there ;  so  he  attacked  it. 

SECTION  VI.     THE  EARLY  METHODIST  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 

CHURCH 

Wesley  defined  the  Church  as  "a  congregation  or  body  of 
people  united  together  in  the  service  of  God."95  More  exactly 
he  recorded :  "The  catholic  or  universal  church,  is  all  the  persons 
in  the  universe,  whom  God  hath  so  called  out  of  the  world,  as 
to  entitle  them  to  the  preceding  character;  as  to  be  'one  body,' 
united  by  'one  spirit,'  having  'one  faith,  one  hope,  one  baptism; 
one  God  and  father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all, 

91  C.  A.  Beckwith :  New  Schaff-Herzog  Ency.,  vol.  viii,  p.  470. 

92  Evans:  Hist,  of  Enthus.,  p.  117. 
93Kirby:  p.  I2ff. 

94  Scott :  Fine  Picture  of  Meth.,  p.  23. 

95  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  154. 


56      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

and  in  them  all.'  "96  Members  of  the  Church  were  composed 
of  all  those  whom  God  had  called  out  of  the  world.  The  build- 
ing was  no  vital  part  of  the  Church.97  This  conception  of  the 
Church,  Wesley  claimed  to  have  received  from  Paul,  whose 
congregations  were  animated  by  one  common  hope  of  immor- 
tality, one  faith,  and  one  outer  baptism.  The  National  Church 
of  England  was  a  part  of  this  universal  Church;  but  was  not 
the  only  true  Church ;  rather  a  part  of  the  larger  unit  which  was 
the  only  true  Church.  In  this  Wesley  declared  that  his  account 
of  the  Church  was  agreeable  to  the  Nineteenth  Article  of  Reli- 
gion of  the  Church  of  England,  which  stated  that  any  Church 
in  which  the  true  Word  of  God  was  preached,  and  the  sacra- 
ments were  duly  administered,  was  a  part  of  the  true  Church. 
And  still  in  view  of  this  Article,  Wesley  plainly  stated  that  he 
would  include  within  the  Church  of  England  people  who  had 
wrong  opinions,  notwithstanding  that  the  Nineteenth  Article 
declared  specifically  to  the  contrary.98 

In  the  matter  of  schism,  Wesley  was  as  unorthodox  as  in 
his  idea  of  the  Church.  Roman  Catholics  defined  schism  as  a 
separation  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  while  the  Churchmen 
defined  it  as  a  separation  from  the  Church  of  England.  Wesley 
pronounced  both  of  these  views  as  equally  incorrect;  for  schism 
was  not  separation  from  the  Church;  but  separation  in  the 
Church,  and  separation  from  any  church  according  to  Scripture, 
with  or  without  cause,  was  not  schism.  He  felt  so  sure  of  his 
stand  in 'this  matter,  that  he  went  to  the  Bible  for  his  proof.99 
He  qualified  this  a  little,  when  he  admitted  that  a  causeless 
separation  from  a  body  of  living  Christians  might  be  schism. 
Whether  schism  be  with,  or  without,  cause,  it  nevertheless  did 
!  much  harm,  because  in  all  cases  of  schism  there  must  be  much 
of  hard  feeling  and  little  of  love.100 

Is  schism  ever  justified?  In  answer  to  this  question,  Wes- 
ley preached,  "I  am  now,  and  have  been  from  my  youth,  a  mem- 


96  Works,  Sermon  On  the  Church,  p.  157. 


»  - 

Ibid.,  vol.  11,  p.  I57ff. 
"Ibid.,  p.  i6iff. 
100  Ibid. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  57 

her  of  the  Church  of  England.  And  I  have  no  desire  nor  design 
to  separate  from  it,  till  my  soul  separates  from  my  body.  Yet 
if  I  was  not  permitted  to  remain  therein,  without  omitting  what 
God  requires  me  to  do,  it  would  then  become  meet  and  right, 
(and  my  bounden  duty  to  separate  from  it  without  delay,"  and 
he  further  added,  that  the  sin  of  separation  would  not  lie  upon 
John  Wesley.101 :  And  yet  after  making  such  a  statement  as 
this,  Wesley  concluded  by  exhorting  all  to  be  peace  makers,  and 
to  remain  within  the  Church  of  England.  Wesley  did  not  be- 
lieve in  schism  in  the  concrete;  but  clearly  recognized  it  in  the 
abstract.  He  might  have  been  loyal  in  his  actions  toward  the 
Church;  but  from  the  Church  of  England's  point  of  view,  he 
certainly  was  heretical  in  his  thinking.  It  was  this  manner  of 
thinking  about  the  Church  that  gave  him  such  freedom  for 
action  when  the  time  for  ordinations  was  ripe. 

SECTION  VII.     THE  ORTHODOXY  OF  EARLY  METHODIST 

DOCTRINE 

The  clergy  thought  that  much  of  Wesley's  doctrine  was 
heresy.  Downes  said  that  Methodism  had  its  counterpart  in  any 
important  heresy  that  had  ever  afflicted  the  Church,  and  that 
it  could  rightfully  be  compared  with  Gnosticism,  Donatism, 
etc.102  Richard  Hill  edited  a  very  comprehensive  list  of  state- 
ments to  bring  out  the  contrast  between  the  various  expressions 
made  by  the  Methodists  upon  the  subjects  of  justification,  per- 
fection, etc.103  Wills,  whose  writings  we  have  heard  of,  went 
even  farther  and  declared  that  the  Methodists  garbled  texts  of 
Scripture,  so  that  they  might  fit  into  their  system  of  doctrine, 
to  such  an  extent  that  they  were  quite  unsound  and  unscientific 
in  their  treatment  of  the  Bible.104  And  when  the  Methodists 
ventured  to  assert  that  the  clergy  deviated  from  the  doctrines 
contained  in  the  Articles  and  Homilies  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, this  was  pronounced  an  "infamous  and  groundless  libel/'105 
This  unsound  attitude  of  the  Methodists  toward  the  orthodoxy 

101  Ibid.,  p.  166. 

102  Methodism  Examined,  p.  I2ff. 

103  Review  of  All  Doctrines  of  J.  W.,  section  ii,  passim. 

104  P.  133- 

105  Downes  :  Methodism  Examined,  p.  50. 


58      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

of  the  Established  Church  was  supposed  by  the  clergy  to  be 
fruitful  of  much  harm;  because  the  Methodists  "set  the  nearest 
and  dearest  relations  at  variance ;  disturbed  the  quiet  of  families ; 
nay,  threw  whole  neighborhoods  and  parishes  into  confusion. "10ft 

Especially  strong  were  the  clergy  in  their  condemnation  of 
the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  they  felt  the  Methodists 
maintained.  This  was  a  principle  "irrational  and  unscrip- 
tural."107  "All  persons  who  pray  or  preach  extempore,  by  a 
pretended  inward  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  address  the  eter- 
nal God  with  an  abominable  lie  in  their  mouths."  There  was, 
in  the  opinion  of  some,  no  such  thing  as  the  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  to  believe  in  the  contrary  was  one  cause  of 
enthusiasm.108  This  attitude  of  the  clergy  toward  Methodist 
doctrine  did  not  change,  and  even  the  late  Canon  Overton  held 
to  the  opinion  that  the  new  birth,  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
justification  by  faith,  as  preached  by  the  Methodists,  were  anti- 
clerical.109 

Wesley's  answer  to  these  clerical  attacks  was  to  make  a 
strong  plea  for  an  intelligent  understanding  of  the  facts  of  the 
case.  He  retorted  to  the  vicious  attacks  of  Downes,  "I  utterly 
disclaim  the  'extraordinary  gifts  of  the  spirit,'  and  all  other 
'influences  and  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost'  than  those  that  are 
common  to  all  Christians";  and  then  told  Downes  that  he  was 
ignorant  of  the  facts.110  When  Dr.  Potter  wrote  that  the  Meth- 
odists pretended  to  cure  the  sick  by  inspiration,  Wesley  an- 
swered, "I  deny  that  I,  or  any  in  connection  with  me  ...  do 
now,  or  ever  did,  lay  claim  to  those  extraordinary  operations  of 
the  spirit."111  To  Mr.  Fleury,  Wesley  disclaimed  "as  he  had 
a  hundred  times  before,  and  ten  times  in  print,"  that  he  had 
any  inspiration  not  common  to  all  real  Christians;  and  since 
this  gentleman  insisted  upon  the  fact  that  Wesley  told  an  un- 
truth, Wesley  curtly  replied,  "If  you  should  see  fit  to  write 
anything  more  about  the  Methodists,  I  beg  you  would  first  learn 


08 John  Free:  Sermon,  1758,  p.  37. 

107  Roe:  p.  20. 

108  Ibid.,  p.  283. 

109  Evangelical  Revival,  chap,  x,  passim. 

110  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  430. 

111  Ibid.,  p.  424. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  59 

who  and  what  they  are."112  To  Dr.  Home,  of  the  University 
of  Oxford,  later  Bishop  of  Norwich,  he  said  the  same  thing: 
Home  was  not  justified  in  bringing  charges  of  heresy  against 
the  Methodists  until  he  found  out  exactly  who  the  Methodists 
were  and  what  they  believed.113 

Wesley  felt  that  if  his  opponents  understood  his  movement 
better,  they  would  find  him  quite  orthodox.  He  urged  his  so- 
cieties to  obey  the  Church  in  the  observation  of  its  feast  days.114 
When  asked  whether  he  did  not  hold  doctrine  contrary  to  the 
Church;  whether  he  did  not  make  dust  of  her  words;  whether 
he  did  not  bewilder  the  brains  of  weak  people,  Wesley  emphati- 
cally answered:  "No."115  He  told  Mr.  Howard,  who  had  asked 
what  the  points  of  difference  were,  that  there  were  none;  that 
the  doctrines  that  the  Methodists  preached  were  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church  as  laid  down  in  her  prayers,  Articles,  and  Homi- 
lies.116 Of  his  preaching  he  said,  "I  simply  described  the  plain 
old  religion  of  the  Church  of  England,  which  is  now  almost 
everywhere  spoken  against  under  the  new  name  of  Meth- 
odism."117 Indeed,  he  continually  thought  of  himself  as  defend- 
ing the  Church  from  those  who  were  secretly  striving  to  under- 
mine it,  while  he  declared  that  all  who  remained  with  him  as 
his  followers,  were  mostly  Church  of  England  men  who  loved 
her  Articles,  her  liturgy,  her  Homilies,  and  her  discipline,  and 
unwillingly  varied  from  them  in  any  instance.118  These  only 
would  he  have  about  him.119 

No  doctrine  was  held  by  Wesley  that  he  did  not  think  to 
be  in  harmony  with  the  liturgy,  Articles,  and  Homilies  of  the 
Church,  and  he  quoted  from  these  sources  with  great  freedom 
to  prove  his  most  fundamental  doctrines.120  He  named  nine  of 
the  Rubrics  and  professed  to  have  observed  them  punctually 
even  at  the  hazard  of  his  life.121  The  Canons  also  he  claimed 


112  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  485  and  491. 
5  Ibid.,  p.  43?. 

4  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  257. 

5  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  402. 

0  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  274-276. 
1 1bid.,  p.  293. 

18  Appeal  to  Men  of  Reason,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  24. 

19  Short  History  of  Methodism,  p.  9. 

20  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  34ff. 

21  Ibid.,  p.  27. 


6o      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

to  obey  as  well  as  any  man  in  England.  He  challenged  any  one 
of  the  clergy  to  say  whether  or  not  he  had  read  over  the  Canons 
to  his  congregation  as  required ;  and  then  stated  that  he  himself 
fulfilled  this  law.  He  professed  a  most  loyal  support  to  all  the 
Canons  and  denied  breaking  any.  Wesley  could  not  have  gone 
far  astray  from  the  doctrines  of  the  Established  Church,  for 
the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  testified  that  "Methodism  signifies  only 
the  manner  of  preaching;  not  either  an  old  or  a  new  religion; 
it  is  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  W.  and  his  followers  attempt 
to  propagate  the  plain  old  religion."  Wesley  let  this  statement 
of  the  bishop  stand,  for  it  represented  his  position.122  Stevens 
summed  well  Wesley's  position  in  the  words:  "The  theological 
distinction  of  Methodism  lay  not  in  novel  tenets,  but  in  the  clear- 
ness and  the  power  with  which  it  illustrated  and  applied  the 
established  doctrines  of  the  English  Reformation;  and  in  har- 
mony with  its  own  characteristic  design,  merely  confined  its 
teachings  to  such  of  these  doctrines  as  related  to  personal  or 
spiritual  religion."123  If  this  be  true,  then  one  cannot  say  that 
the  Methodists  became  estranged  from  the  Church  on  doctrinal 
grounds  alone.  To  be  sure,  Wesley  said  he  was  put  out  of  the 
churches  for  preaching  justification  by  faith  alone.124  He  also 
said  that  until  he  preached  this  doctrine,  he  was  welcomed  into 
the  churches;  but  a  pseudonymous  writer,  John  Smith,  takes 
Wesley  to  task  for  this,  and  reminded  Wesley  that  he  was  for- 
bidden to  preach  in  the  churches  before  the  time  when  he  claimed 
to  have  experienced  the  truth  in  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
faith.125  Since  Wesley  did  not  deny  the  error  of  statement 
which  Smith  attributed  to  him,  it  would  seem  that  doctrine  had 
little  to  do  with  the  Methodists  leaving  the  churches.  When 
it  is  a  glory  peculiar  to  the  Methodists  that  there  is  "no  other 
religious  society  under  heaven  which  requires  nothing  of  men 
in  order  to  admission  to  it  but  a  desire  to  save  souls,  not 
opinions — we  think  and  let  think;  nor  modes  of  worship"— 
when  this  is  the  attitude  of  a  group  of  people,  one  cannot  cor- 

122  Letter  to  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  451. 
128  Hist,  of  Meth.,  vol.  ii,  p.  408. 

124  Appeal  to  Men  of  Reason,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  23. 

125  Moore:  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  421. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  61 

rectly  think  that  the  demarcation  along  doctrinal  lines  is  very 
clearly  cut.126 

Doctrine,  then,  was  not  a  direct  cause  for  antagonism  be- 
tween the  groups  of  Methodists  and  Churchmen  of  so  great  an 
extent  that  they  would  not  live  together  in  concord.  Difference 
of  opinion  on  some  of  the  facts  of  religion  and  the  interpretation 
of  those  facts  was  abundantly  and  irritatingly  present;  but  there 
was  no  huge  doctrinal  gap  between  the  Church  and  the  Meth- 
odists. Doctrine,  however,  did  show  a  state  of  mind,  and  out 
of  this  certain  state  of  mind  came  a  type  of  action.  It  was  this 
which  drove  the  wedge  between  the  clergy  and  the  Methodists; 
for  this  action  brought  out  a  strong  opposition  from  the  Church, 
and  this  opposition  worked  to  establish  a  group  consciousness 
among  the  Methodists  that  heretofore  had  not  existed.  Doctrine 
alone  never  could  have  parted  the  Methodists  from  the  Church- 
men. Action  could  and  did. 


126  Overton :  Evangelical  Revival,  p.  154. 


62      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

CHAPTER  IV 
PRACTICES  OF  THE  EARLY  METHODISTS 

THERE  was  no  fundamental  difference  between  the  Meth- 
odists and  the  Churchmen  regarding  doctrine.  But  in  the 
method  of  applying  those  doctrines,  and  in  the  emphasis  put  upon 
portions  of  those  doctrines  there  was  a  difference.  The  Church 
believed  in  justification  by  faith;  but  while  so  believing,  it  was 
not  keenly  alive  to  the  fact  that  men  were  being  forever  lost 
in  large  numbers.  The  Methodists  thought  they  faced  a  world 
quite  bad,  and  that  their  chief  duty  was  to  save  souls.  Great 
vigor  in  applying  their  doctrine  resulted  from  this  attitude  of 
mind.  Their  method  of  application,  rather  than  the  doctrine 
itself,  caused  many  of  the  clergy  for  the  time  being  to  shut  the 
Methodists  out  of  their  pulpits.  In  a  letter  dated  March  7,  1745, 
Wesley  recorded,  that  about  seven  years  ago  he  began  teaching 
"inward  present  salvation,  as  attainable  by  faith  alone.  For 
preaching  this  doctrine  we  were  forbidden  to  preach  in  the 
churches."1  It  would  appear  that  it  was  the  manner  Wesley 
adopted  in  preaching  this  doctrine,  rather  than  the  doctrine 
itself,  that  caused  the  ousting  from  the  churches.  He  himself 
told  of  the  instance,  wherein  a  woman  in  Newlyn  objected  to 
his  preaching  by  saying,  "Nay,  if  going  to  Church  and  sacra- 
ment will  not  put  us  to  heaven,  I  know  not  what  will."2  This 
showed  that  the  people  in  the  Church  felt — whether  they  were 
right  or  wrong  is  not  to  the  point — that  Wesley  was  against  the 
Church  and  the  sacrament.  If  this  was  so,  they  thought  them- 
selves in  duty  bound  to  keep  him  from  speaking  in  the  Church. 
It  was  a  misunderstanding;  because  at  Epworth  the  people  were 
urged  by  Wesley  to  attend  the  sacrament;  yet  the  rector  would 
not  give  Wesley  the  sacrament  because  he  "was  not  fit."3  Wes- 
ley stated  that  reaction  of  the  Methodists  to  this  misunderstan 


1  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  167. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  iy,  p.  236. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  61. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  63 

ing  and  spiritual  deadness  in  the  Established  Church  as  follows : 
'They  still  cleave  to  the  Church  which  they  truly  love;  but  being 
generally  out  from  her  pulpits,  they  had  no  alternative  but  to 
become,  what  has  been  called,  irregular.  Their  hearts  bowed  to 
the  opprobrium."4  This  agitation  with  its  hard  feeling  forced  the 
Methodists  to  adopt  a  certain  program  in  order  to  save  this  world 
that  was  "utterly  lost." 

SECTION  I.     EARLY  FIELD  PREACHING 

Finding  the  churches  closed  to  him,  Wesley  took  to  outdoor 
preaching.  It  was  a  "sudden  expedient."5  Wesley  did  not 
anticipate  this  method  of  spreading  salvation;  for  when  he 
preached  a  second  time  he  described  it  as  "submitting  to  be 
more  vile."6  Whitefield  had  been  preaching  out  of  doors  at 
Bristol  and  had  invited  Wesley  to  come  and  see  how  it  worked; 
but  Wesley  could  "scarce  reconcile  myself  at  first  to  this  strange 
way  of  preaching  in  the  fields,  of  which  he  set  me  an  example  on 
Sunday:  having  been  all  my  life  (till  very  lately)  so  tenacious 
of  every  point  relating  to  decency  and  order,  that  I  should  have 
thought  the  saving  of  souls  almost  a  sin  if  it  had  not  been  done 
in  Church."7  He  began  this  procedure  by  preaching  on  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  quoting  Jesus  as  a  precedent  for  field 
preaching.8  Nevertheless  he  never  really  liked  field  preaching. 
Writing  to  an  opponent  he  said,  "I  do  prefer  the  preaching  in 
a  church  when  I  am  suffered;  and  yet,  when  I  am  not,  the  wise 
providence  of  God  overrules  this  very  circumstance  for  good, 
many  coming  to  hear  because  of  the  uncommonness  of  the  thing, 
who  otherwise  would  not  have  heard  at  all."9  Overton  was 
right  when  he  said  that  Wesley  had  a  "repugnance  which  he 
had  the  greatest  difficulty  in  overcoming"  for  field  preaching.10 

Once  begun,  field  preaching  was  carried  on  in  a  thorough 
manner.  Wesley  did  away  with  formal  prayer,  that  he  might 

4  Moore :  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  i,  p.  358. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  361. 

6  Jour.  vol.  ii,  p.  172. 
1 1bid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  167. 
6  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  168. 

9  Letter  to  Author  of  Enthus.  of  Meth.  and  Papists  Compared,  p.  g. 

10  Op.  cit.,  p.  17. 


64      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

get  down  to  his  audience.11  He  preached  in  a  number  of  places : 
In  Durham  it  was  in  a  meadow  near  the  river  side — "quite  con- 
venient."12 At  Plymouth  it  was  in  the  common.13  At  Exeter 
half  the  town  came  to  hear  him  in  an  amphitheater  just  outside 
of  the  castle.14  Time  and  again  he  simply  stood  in  the  street 
and  gave  his  message.15  At  Stroud  he  preached  in  the  market 
place,  while  at  Kinsdale  he  gave  his  sermon  in  the  town  ex- 
change.16 Not  only  in  all  kinds  of  places;  but  also  at  all  hours 
and  in  all  kinds  of  weather  Wesley  labored.  At  Wrestlingworth, 
he  preached  by  moonlight.17  In  the  square  of  Keelmen's  Hos- 
pital, it  was  in  the  rain  and  the  hail.18  And  in  a  hot  sun  where 
"the  vehement  stench  of  stinking  fish  as  was  ready  to  suffocate 
me,  and  the  people  roared  like  the  waves  of  the  sea,"  he  per- 
formed his  mission  to  the  inhabitants  of  Guisborough.19 

Wesley  was  encouraged  in  this  by  large  audiences.  At 
Bristol  he  preached  to  one  thousand,  and  later  in  the  day  to 
fifteen  hundred  at  Kingswood.20  At  Gloucester  he  told  of  an 
audience  of  over  a  thousand.21  At  Moorfields  a  huge  audience 
of  ten  thousand  was  mentioned,  while  at  Kennington  on  the  same 
day  twenty  thousand  were  recorded  as  having  heard  the  gospel.22 
There  was  no  doubt  much  exaggeration  and  over  estimating  in 
connection  with  these  figures;  but  the  fact  remains  that  enor- 
mous audiences  must  have  listened  to  this  field  preaching,  for 
oftentimes  the  preachers  lost  their  voices  in  seeking  to  make 
themselves  heard.23 

This  field  preaching  was  not  countenanced  by  the  Church. 
As  early  as  1739  complaints  were  made  against  the  Methodists 
for  irregularity  in  conduct.  Whitefield,  especially,  was  a  center 

11  Jour.,  vol.  i,  p.  449. 

12  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  463. 

13  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  302. 

14  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  87. 

15  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  294. 
™Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  29  and  474. 

17  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  483. 

18  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  51. 

19  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  465. 
™  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  I75ff. 
21  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  242. 
"Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  273. 

28  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  471. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  65 

for  attack  and  was  accused  of  preaching  without  a  license  from 
the  bishop,  thereby  acting  contrary  to  the  Canons  and  the  rules 
of  Christianity;  furthermore,  he  showed  a  great  contempt  for 
the  liturgy,  for  the  Church,  and  for  the  clergy.24  He  and  others 
were  flayed  because  they  had  broken  the  vows  which  they  took 
at  ordination.  This  was  surely  true  of  Whitefield;  for  he  was 
not  diplomatic  and  in  many  ways  goaded  those  who  did  take 
opposite  point  of  view  from  him.25  But  Wesley's  actions  were 
considered  even  less  justifiable  than  Whitefield' s;  because  he 
was  a  man  of  greater  learning  and  with  a  cooler  head.  One 
would  expect  more  legal  actions  from  him.26  In  general,  the 
Methodists  were  said  to  break  the  Church  law,  for  they  did  not 
observe  the  Rubrics  and  the  Canons.  The  Canons,  so  the  argu- 
ment ran,  forbade  field  preaching.  Yet  no  one  designated  just 
which  part  of  the  Church  law  was  violated.27  Wesley  retorted: 
that  field  preaching  no  more  violated  the  Canons  than  did  the 
habit  of  playing  cards,  which  was  heavily  indulged  in  by  the 
clergy  of  the  period.  Bishop  Gibson  was  opposed  to  field  preach- 
ing because  it  broke  the  Act  of  Toleration;  for  this  act  pro- 
vided :  "That  no  congregation  or  assembly  for  religious  worship 
be  permitted  or  allowed,  until  the  place  of  such  meeting  shall  be 
certified  to  the  bishop  of  the  diocese,  or  the  archdeacon  of  the 
Archdeaconry,  or  to  the  justices  of  the  peace  at  their  General 
or  Quarter  Sessions."28  The  bishop  claimed  that  this  law  was 
not  lived  up  to.  "Nor  has  it  been  known  that  a  dissenting 
teacher  of  any  denomination  whatever,  has  thought  himself 
warranted,  under  the  Act  of  Toleration  to  preach  in  fields  or 
streets."  Methodists  were  not  even  good  Dissenters.29  Wesley 
did  not  admit  this  position ;  for  he  denied  absolutely  that  anybody 
had  a  right  to  class  the  Methodists  with  the  Dissenters;  because 
the  Methodists  were  not  Dissenters;  but  rather  members  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  since  they  were  members  of  the  Church, 
the  Act  of  Toleration  did  not  apply  to  them.30  Furthermore,. 

24 J.  Tucker:  Conduct  of  Whitefield,  p.  6. 

26  Plain  Address  to  Followers  of  Meth.,  p.  6. 
28  Tucker :  Op.  cit.,  p.  9. 

27  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  120. 

28  Gee  and  Hardy :  p.  663. 

29  Obs.  upon  Conduct  of  Methodists,  p.  4. 

30  Farther  Appeal,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  81. 


66      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Wesley  might  have  added,  that  the  framers  of  the  Act  of  Tolera- 
tion never  had  any  idea  of  field  preaching  when  they  put  forth 
this  statute. 

Wesley  would  not  admit  that  he  had  broken  any  law,  or 
that  he  was  in  any  wise  disloyal  to  the  Established  Church.  To 
those  who  believed  him  disloyal  he  flung  back:  "And  would  to 
God  all  who  contend  for  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church 
(perhaps  with  more  zeal  than  meekness  of  wisdom)  would  first 
show  their  own  regard  for  her  discipline.  .  .  . "  31  Whenever 

-  he  could  attend  Church  services  he  did  so ;  and  it  was  his  habit  to 
attend  no  other  service  if  he  could  find  one  in  a  Church.32     He 
was  very  particular  to  keep  the  feast  days  of  the  Church,  observ- 
ing a  set  day  for  thanksgiving  when  England  gave  herself  over 
to  celebrate  the  capture  of  Quebec  by  Wolfe.33    Another  thanks- 
giving day,  because  of  the  signing  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  July 
29,  1784,  was  duly  celebrated.34     When  a  Public  Fast  was  pro- 
claimed in  1759,  Wesley  preached  to  crowded  audiences.35     A 
national  day  of  prayer  because  of  war  was  observed  by  the  Meth- 
odists in  I778.36    On  a  day  of  prayer  in  1760,  set  aside  for  the 
enthronement  of  the  new  king,  the  Methodists  held  three  sepa- 
rate services  for  the  occasion.37     The  more  special  feast  days 

•  around  the  time  of  Christmas  and  All  Saints'  Day,  a  festival 
Wesley  dearly  loved,  were  regularly  kept.38 

In  spite  of  Wesley's  profession  of  loyalty,  the  clergy  con- 
sidered that  he  was  breaking  Church  law,  cheapening  religion, 
and  hence  faithless;  so  they  did  what  they  could  to  hinder  his 
field  preaching.  At  Upton  the  clergy  had  the  bells  rung;  but 
Wesley's  voice  prevailed  over  the  noise  of  the  bells.39  Mr.  Rom- 
ley  would  accept  no  offers  of  assistance  from  Wesley  while  at 
Epworth,  but  in  the  afternoon  attacked  the  Methodists  and 
preached  a  stinging  sermon  against  Enthusiasm.  It  was  in  the 


31  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  291. 

32  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  479. 

33  Ibid.,  vol.  iy,  p.  360. 

34  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  6. 

35  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  299ff. 
36 Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  181. 

37  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  418. 

™Ibid.,  vol.  v.,  p.  236  and  vol.  vi,  p.  7. 

39  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  346. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  67 

evening  of  the  same  day,  June  6,  1742,  that  Wesley,  having 
been  rebuffed  by  the  rector  of  his  father's  former  parish  of 
Ep worth,  went  out  into  the  parish  churchyard  of  that  place 
and  standing  upon  his  father's  tombstone,  thundered  forth  a 
sermon  on  the  text,  "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  not  meat  and 
drink;  but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost"; 
and  then,  evidently  his  wrath  stirred  because  of  this  clerical 
opposition,  he  planned  to  remain  at  Epworth  a  few  more  days 
to  promote  the  spirit  which  had  been  manifested  at  his  father's 
grave.40  Opposition  came  from  many  quarters.  The  Arch- 
bishop of  Dublin  would  permit  no  preaching  out  of  church, 
though  Wesley  talked  with  him  about  it  two  or  three  hours. 
Nevertheless,  on  that  same  day,  Wesley  preached  on  Marlborough 
Street  in  Dublin.41  Many  of  the  clergy  were  opposed  to  this 
field  preaching  because  they  felt  it  was  without  results,  for  the 
people  did  not  understand  half  of  it,  or  else  if  they  did,  the  noise 
of  the  mob  and  rabble  soon  made  them  forget  what  they  had 
heard.42  But  Wesley  felt  that  just  as  much  religion  was  taken 
in  by  the  people  who  stood  out  of  doors  to  hear  his  words,  as 
by  the  people  who  attended  Saint  Paul's,  where  there  was  the 
"highest  indecency" ;  for  a  considerable  part  of  the  congregation 
were  accustomed  to  sleep  during  the  service,  or  talk,  look  about, 
and  not  hear  a  word  the  preacher  said.43 

The  laity,  too,  did  a  good  deal  to  hinder  field  preaching.  At 
first  the  opposition  was  mild.  At  Bath,  Richard  Merchant  would 
not  let  Wesley  preach  on  his  land.44  At  Saint  Ives,  while  preach- 
ing to  a  quiet  gathering,  the  service  was  interrupted  by  the 
mayor,  who  ordered  one  to  read  the  proclamation  against  riots, 
whereupon  the  meeting  was  soon  forced  to  a  conclusion.45  Men 
took  to  foolish  resorts  to  stop  field  preaching.  They  sang  ballads 
to  take  the  attention  away  from  the  preaching,  but  failed.46 
When  mild  measures  availed  little,  stronger  means  were  adopted 

40  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  19. 

"Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  313. 

42  Observation  of  Mr.  Seagrave's  Conduct,  p.  34. 

48  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  373. 

44  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  244. 

46  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  186. 

48  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  213. 


68      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS       - 

and  a  press  gang  broke  up  one  service,  leaving  Wesley  to  mourn 
over  English  liberty,  property  rights,  and  the  Magna  Charta.47 
While  preaching  at  Newport,  "one  ancient  man  cursed  and 
swore  and  finally  tried  to  heave  a  great  stone  at  the  preacher, 
but  could  not  do  so.48  Others  tried  to  disturb  meetings  by  driv- 
ing animals  in  among  the  people  who  listened.  A  herd  of  cows 
was  driven  among  the  audience  at  Great  Gardens,  but  without 
avail.49  One  tried  unsuccessfully  to  drive  an  ox  at  the  crowd 
in  Charles  Square,  but  Wesley  was  left  victor.50  At  Pensford, 
there  was  a  little  more  success  for  the  opposition,  when  a  baited 
bull  was  driven  into  a  crowd  of  hearers,  for  Wesley  was  knocked 
clean  off  the  table  from  which  he  was  preaching.  He  went  a 
little  ways  on,  however,  and  finished  his  discourse.51  One  must 
not  suppose  that  Wesley  always  submitted  to  this  bad  usage. 
He  tried  not  to  be  antagonistic,  but  whenever  opportunity 
offered  took  legal  steps  against  those  who  illegally  opposed 
him.52 

In  spite  of  all  this  opposition,  Wesley  felt  that  field  preach- 
ing paid.  At  Bath  his  audiences  were  always  serious.53  At 
Newcastle,  a  huge  crowd  gathered  twice  on  a  hill  in  the  worst 
part  of  the  place  and  seemed  "to  tread  me  under  foot,  out  of 
pure  love  and  kindness."  Though  some  hated  him;  yet  with 
many  Wesley  and  his  preachers  had  an  undoubted  popularity.54 
Men  were  actually  saved  through  field  preaching,  and  that  was 
what  Wesley  desired  above  all  else. 

Wesley  never  felt  field  preaching  was  a  mistake.  Neglect 
of  it  he  always  condemned  as  a  hindrance  to  the  work.55  Any 
decrease  in  members  in  any  circuit,  was  immediately  laid  to  the 
lack  of  field  preaching  in  that  circuit.56  Any  Methodists  who 
would  not  support  field  preaching  were  cowardly  or  lazy.57 

"Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  245. 
"Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  295-296. 
49  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  45. 
80  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  475. 
01  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  535. 
™  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  523. 
68  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  234. 

64  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  14. 

65  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  468. 

86  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  140. 

*7 Large  Minutes,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  212 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  69 

Wesley  summed  up  his  own  attitude  when  he  said,  "If  ever  this 
is  laid  aside,  I  expect  the  whole  work  will  gradually  die  away."58 
This  being  Wesley's  own  attitude,  one  will  not  be  surprised  to 
learn  that  between  April  2,  1739,  and  October  7,  1790,  he 
preached  above  42,000  sermons  out  of  doors.59  The  result  of 
such  effort  can  never  be  adequately  measured;  but  one  may  be 
assured  of  this:  that  "the  drowsy,  slippered,  arm-chair  religion 
of  the  day  became  aggressive.  It  attacked,  instead  of  waiting 
to  be  attacked.  Open  air  preaching  in  these  modern  days  has 
itself  become  almost  a  convention,  but  in  1739  it  was  a  revolu- 
tion."60 

Wesley  thought  himself  quite  within  his  rights  as  a  member 
of  the  Established  Church,  when  he  went  into  the  fields  to 
preach.  On  one  occasion  he  argued  with  one  who  claimed  he 
was  an  enemy  of  the  Church,  not  because  of  doctrine,  but  be- 
cause he  preached  outside  of  the  Church.  The  argument  lasted 
two  hours,  but  Wesley  could  not  convince  his  opponent.61  Wes- 
ley judged  the  Established  Church  to  be  one  of  the  established 
order;  yet  the  fact  that  his  ancestors  had  supported  it  in  the 
past,  was  to  him  no  reason  that  he  should  support  it  if  it  were 
in  the  wrong.  He  plainly  said  that  had  Luther  used  this  logic 
there  would  have  been  no  Reformation.  Hence,  when  the 
Church  did  not  give  the  people  the  gospel  freely  enough,  Wesley 
felt  free  to  deviate  from  it  and  to  go  into  the  fields  to  preach 
without  becoming  an  enemy  of  the  Church.62  "At  present  I 
apprehend  those,  and  only  those,  to  separate  from  the  Church, 
who  either  renounce  her  fundamental  doctrines,  or  refuse  to  join 
in  her  public  worship.  And  yet  we  have  done  neither."63 

If  this  was  Wesley's  attitude,  we  must  look  upon  field 
preaching  as  the  acts  of  self-denying  men  "who  went  forth  into 
the  highways  and  hedges,  that  they  might  instruct  the  ignorant 
and  reclaim  the  lost."64  And  we  must  presume  that  "the  ecclesi- 


68  Jour.,  vol.  v,  p.  79. 
69Fitchett:  p.  190. 
"Ibid.,  p.  168. 

61  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  261. 

62  Works,  vol.  yii,  p.  302. 

63  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  274. 

64 Jackson:  Centennial  of  Wesleyan  Methodism,  p.  61. 


70      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

astical  authorities  were  provoked  against  Methodism  because  it 
violated  their  rule  and  rebuked  their  failure."65 

SECTION  II.     EARLY  IRREGULAR  INDOOR  PREACHING 

When  the  Methodists  broke  the  conventions  of  the  day  to 
save  men,  they  did  not  stop  at  field  preaching;  but  used  any  and 
every  agency  they  could  to  tell  men  of  salvation.  Not  only  in 
the  fields,  but  indoors  as  well  they  toiled. 

They  used  public  buildings  frequently.  Town  Halls  were 
frequently  packed  with  hearers.66  The  court  house  at  Cardiff, 
Wales,  was  a  place  extensively  used.67  At  Castlebay,  Ireland, 
Wesley  preached  twice  in  one  day  in  the  jury  room.68  The 
floors  caved  in  and  rested  upon  hogsheads  of  tobacco  in  Turner's 
Hall  at  Deptford,  but  Wesley  continued  to  preach.69 

Hospitals,  theaters,  and  at  Northampton  the  riding  school 
of  the  Royal  Horse  Guards — all  these  places  were  used.70  Of 
Armagh,  we  read:  "This  was  the  first  time  I  ever  preached  in 
a  stable,  and  I  believe  more  good  was  done  by  this  than  by  all 
the  other  sermons  I  have  preached."71  Small  rooms  in  houses 
of  all  descriptions  were  constantly  used  for  assemblies. 

The  earlier  Methodists  did  not  scruple  to  use  Dissenting 
meeting-houses,  if  they  found  the  churches  closed  to  them.  In 
Ireland  a  Presbyterian  meeting-house  was  offered  both  by  the 
ministers  and  by  the  elders.  It  was  used.  The  trustees  of  an 
Independent  meeting-house  in  Bolton  offered  the  use  of  their 
house,  when  the  opportunity  to  preach  in  the  Established  Church 
was  withdrawn.  Wesley  preached  there.72  Of  course,  the 
bishops  could  not  but  be  antagonized  when  they  knew  Wesley 
and  his  followers  were  to  preach  in  places  of  dissent.  Had 
Archbishop  Hutton  of  York  possessed  convincing  proof  of  this, 
Wesley  himself  said  that  the  archbishop  would  have  undoubtedly 
suspended  him.73 

68  Cadman  :  Op.  cit.,  p.  295. 

66  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  62. 

67  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  231. 

68  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  506. 

69  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  283. 

70  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  53  and  vol  v,  pp.  48  and  236. 

71  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  312. 

72  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  272  and  vol.  vii,  p.  288. 
"Jackson:  Life  of  Charles  Wesley,  p.  580. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  71 

Thus  the  Churchmen  felt  the  same  about  this  indoor  preach- 
ing as  they  did  about  preaching  out  of  doors.  It  was  hurtful  to 
the  Church,  therefore  they  would  oppose  it.  Mobs  repeatedly 
attacked  houses  in  which  Methodists  preached.  At  Chelsea  wild 
fire  was  thrown  into  the  house  and  the  smoke  was  so  thick  that 
the  preacher  could  not  see  the  people  assembled  there.74  Robert 
Griff  eth,  of  Holyhead,  an  old  man,  and  the  owner  of  a  house 
in  which  Methodist  meetings  took  place,  was  struck  down  by  a 
stone  by  a  captain  living  in  that  place,  who  wished  to  break  up 
the  service.75  The  opposition  to  field  preaching  and  irregular 
indoor  preaching  was  somewhat  alike  in  character  and  identical 
from  motive.76 

SECTION  III.     THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  ITINERACY 

When  the  Methodists  saw  how  their  efforts  to  preach  the 
gospel  outside  of  the  Established  Church  were  welcomed  by  the 
poor  who  came  to  hear  them  in  large  numbers,  it  was  most 
natural  that  they  should  seek,  in  their  earnestness,  to  extend 
these  efforts  as  widely  as  possible  over  England.  This  they 
did  by  traveling  far  and  wide.  This  system  of  travel  was  called 
the  itineracy.  It  was  organized  in  no  formal  manner.  Mr. 
Seward  of  Bristol  requested  Wesley  to  go  to  Bristol  to  preach. 
The  people  at  Fetter  Lane,  including  Charles  Wesley,  were 
opposed  to  John  Wesley's  going  and  wrangled  much  over  the 
point.  At  length  all  agreed  to  settle  it  by  lot;  the  Bible  was 
opened;  Wesley  went;  the  itineracy  had  begun.77  Soon  after 
this  Wesley  narrated :  "My  ordinary  employment  in  public  was 
as  follows :  Every  morning  I  read  prayers  and  preached  at  New- 
gate. Every  evening  I  expound  a  portion  of  Scripture  at  one 
or  more  of  the  societies.  On  Monday,  in  the  afternoon,  I 
preached  abroad  near  Bristol,  on  Tuesday,  at  Bath  and  Two- 
Mile  hill  alternately;  on  Wednesday,  at  Baptist  mills;  every 
other  Thursday  near  Pensford;  every  other  Friday,  in  another 
part  of  Kingswood;  on  Saturday,  in  the  afternoon,  and  Sunday 


74  Jour. ,  vol.  ii,  p.  524. 

75  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  461  ff. 

78  Vide  Barr :  Early  Meth.  Under  Persecution  in  this  connection. 
1  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  I57ff. 


72      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

morning,  in  the  Bowling  Green.  ...  on  Sunday  at  eleven  near 
Hanham  Mount;  at  two  at  Clifton,  and  at  five,  at  Rose  Green."78 
With  this  beginning,  the  work  spread  rapidly.  Wesley  himself 
went  to  Ireland  forty-two  times  in  his  life,  and  the  second  largest 
society  was,  for  a  time,  in  Dublin.79  He  toured  through  the 
north  of  England  and  up  into  Scotland  many  times.80  At  Kelso, 
in  Scotland,  he  began  his  work  by  singing  a  psalm  in  the  market 
place;  the  chief  men  came  to  hear  him;  but  he  "spared  neither 
rich  nor  poor."  He  was  surprised  at  himself,  for  it  was  not 
usual  for  him  "to  use  so  keen  and  cutting  expressions."81  And 
this  also  may  explain  why  the  Methodists  did  not  better  impress 
the  doughty  Scotchmen  with  their  message.  Wesley  visited  the 
Scilly  Islands  and  as  late  as  1788  organized  a  society  there.82 
And  when  he  preached  at  Taunton,  and  in  the  places  of  Corn- 
wall, his  welcome  was  ever  warm. 

It  is  no  easy  task  to  seek  to  give  an  idea  of  the  extent  of 
this  itineracy.  Wesley's  Journal  would  give  the  impression 
that  he  preached  in  a  different  town  every  day,  and  usually  in 
not  less  than  three  places  each  day.  A  perusal  of  his  compiled 
itineracy  shows  that  he  traveled  250,000  miles  and  preached 
40,000  sermons.83  Others  besides  Wesley  traveled.  William 
Grimshaw  preached  as  often  as  thirty  times  a  week,  and  never 
less  than  twelve.84 

The  difficulties  of  travel  were  very  bad.  One  who  knows 
England  knows  that  roads  at  this  time  were  beyond  description. 
Entertainment  often  was  equally  bad.  At  Oxwich,  Wesley 
recorded:  "After  I  had  stayed  a  while  in  the  street  (for  there 
was  no  publiic  house),  a  poor  woman  gave  me  house  room. 
Having  had  nothing  since  breakfast,  I  was  very  willing  to  eat 
and  drink;  but  she  simply  told  me  that  she  had  nothing  in  the 
house  but  a  dram  of  gin.  However,  I  afterwards  procured  a 


Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p. 

'*.,  p. 

and  vol.  v,  p.  236. 


* irtn.f    vui.    11,   jj.    lyoii, 

79Overton:  Op.  cit.,  p.  114. 
80  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  23ff., 


81  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  219. 

82  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  91. 

83  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  vi,  pp.  149*?.  gives  a  detailed  account  of 
Wesley's  itineracy  and  should  be  consulted  in  this  connection. 

84  Overton :  Evangelical  Rev.,  p.  62. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  73 

dish  of  tea  from  another  house  and  was  much  refreshed."85 
And  again:  "My  lodging  is  not  such  as  I  should  have  chosen, 
but  what  Providence  chooses  is  always  good.  My  bed  was  con- 
siderably under  ground,  the  room  serving  both  for  a  bed  chamber 
and  a  cellar.  The  closeness  was  more  troublesome  at  first  than 
the  coolness,  but  I  let  in  a  little  fresh  air  by  breaking  a  pane 
of  paper  (put  by  way  of  glass)  in  the  window,  and  then  slept 
sound  till  morning."88 

Wesley  must  have  thought  that  this  traveling  from  place 
to  place  paid,  or  else  he  would  not  have  put  up  with  so  much 
hardship,  or  advocated  the  itineracy  so  strenuously.  When  there 
was  no  increase  in  Methodist  membership,  Wesley  easily  attrib- 
uted this  to  the  fact  that  "one  preacher  stays  two  or  three  months 
at  a  time  preaching  on  Sunday  mornings  and  three  or  four  eve- 
nings a  week.  Can  a  Methodist  preacher  preserve  either  bodily 
health,  or  spiritual  life  with  this  exercise?"87  Such  was  the 
emphasis  Wesley  put  upon  the  itineracy. 

If  the  clergy  objected  to  field  preaching,  and  irregular  in- 
door preaching,  of  course  they  objected  to  the  itineracy,  which 
was  essentially  organized  field  preaching  and  irregular  indoor 
preaching.  It  was  with  some  justice  that  the  clergy  reasoned 
against  the  itineracy  when  they  said  that  traveling  Methodist 
preachers  tended  to  make  the  people  of  a  community  have  little 
esteem  for  their  regular  ministers.  Ordination  was  limited  for 
this  very  purpose;  yet  this  itineracy  tried  to  undo  just  what 
the  bishops  sought  to  do.  Then,  too,  the  Church  had  plenty 
of  ministers  and  did  not  need  these  itinerants.88  This  sounded 
strangely  like  the  arguments  brought  against  the  Dominicans 
and  the  Franciscans.  Whitefield  was  accused  of  breaking  the 
law — if  he  insisted  on  preaching,  he  should  have  a  chance  to 
preach  to  fellow-prisoners — so  the  critic  facetiously  remarked.89 
When  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  indicated  that  he  broke  the  law, 
Whitefield  defended  himself  and  said  of  this  opposition,  "I  can 


85  Jour.,  vol.  v,  p. 

88  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  32. 

"Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  19. 

88  Gibson:  Observation  of  Meth.,  p.  nff. 

89Josiah  Tucker:  Account  of  Whitefield,  p.  4. 


74      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

foresee  the  consequences  very  well.  They  have  in  one  sense, 
already  thrust  us  out  of  the  synagogues.  By  and  by,  they  will 
think  it  is  doing  God  a  service  to  kill  us."90  Wesley  faced  this 
opposition  which  asserted  that  he  broke  the  Canons  saying:  "I 
have  no  parish  of  my  own.  God  tells  me  to  preach  and  teach. 
Who  shall  I  obey,  God  or  man?"  Then  he  announced  to  the 
clergy  his  slogan,  "I  look  upon  the  world  as  my  parish."  This 
showed  no  compromise.91 

Thus  was  the  itineracy  established,  and  so  well  did  it 
function,  that  the  none  too  friendly  Hampson  said,  "So  long 
as  the  itineracy  can  be  preserved,  and  a  frequent  change  of 
preachers  kept  up,  so  long  will  Methodism  prosper."92 

SECTION  IV.    THE  USE  OF  LAY  PREACHERS 

The  clergy  considered  that  the  unusual  practices  of  the 
Methodists  in  the  above  described  forms  were  bad  enough,  and 
these  practices  at  first  were  primarily  the  work  of  regularly 
trained  clergy — clergymen  with  the  same  ecclesiastical  standing 
in  the  Church  as  themselves.  But  in  their  zeal  to  save  the  world, 
the  Methodists  were  willing  to  go  to  even  farther  extremes. 
They  were  willing  to  use  laymen.  This  irregularity — irregular 
from  the  standpoint  of  a  Churchman — nettled  the  clergy  and  the 
Established  Church  much  more  than  the  irregularities  committed 
by  the  regular  clergy.  When  Wesley  used  lay  preachers,  he 
was  not  original,  for  as  Lelievre  said,  "le  ministere  lai'que 
existait  deja  depuis  quelques  annees  et  avait  fait  ses  preuves."93 

The  reason  for  introducing  lay  preachers  into  the  Methodist 
plan  was  the  practical  need  of  the  day.  So  many  people  came 
under  Wesley's  care  that  he  had  to  decide  whether  he  should 
confine  his  labors  to  those  whom  he  could  visit  constantly  or 
within  a  short  space  of  time,  or  whether  he  should  obtain  other 
assistance.94  After  Whitefield  preached  one  day  at  Islington, 
a  layman  named  Bowers  stood  upon  a  table  and  addressed  the 


80  White  field's  Jour.,  p.  2958. 

81  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  2i7ff. 
92  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  74ff. 


93  Vie  de  Wesley,  p.  139. 
"Moore:  Life  of  Wesley, 


vol.  i,  pp.  413-414- 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  75 

crowd.  Charles  Wesley  was  so  hot  at  the  spectacle  that  he  with- 
drew. Bowers  was  arrested  at  Oxford  and  rebuked  by  Charles 
Wesley ;  but  his  brother  John  saw  the  opportunity  in  the  affair.95 
Shortly  afterward  he  chose  Thomas  Maxfield  as  one  of  his 
helpers.  Maxfield  was  Wesley's  first  lay  preacher. 

The  way  now  opened;  Wesley  had  many  to  help  him. 
Thomas  Walsh  preached  in  Ireland  with  great  results,  came  later 
to  England  and  contracted  tuberculosis,  thus  ending  his  life.96 
John  Bennett  was  an  able  person  who  accompanied  Wesley  on 
many  of  his  journeys.97  John  Jones,  a  physician,  also  came  to 
preach  for  Wesley,  though  later  he  left  the  Methodists.98  These 
men  preached,  traveled  with  Wesley,  and  assisted  him  in  every 
way  possible. 

Great  care  was  taken  with  the  selection  of  these  men.  Wes- 
ley listened  to  their  preaching  and  then  examined  the  practical 
results  of  their  efforts.  It  was  not  polity  nor  doctrine  but  prac- 
tical results  that  counted  with  Wesley.99  Yet  as  the  work  pro- 
gressed, the  men  were  carefully  examined  as  to  their  orthodoxy 
and  other  abilities.100  By  the  year  1765,  these  men  were  "ad- 
mitted on  trial,"  or  "admitted  in  full,"  and  Wesley  regularly 
appointed  them  to  circuits  for  one  year.101 

It  was  to  be  expected  that  among  such  men  as  were  selected 
to  be  lay  preachers,  those  would  be  found  who  were  undesirable. 
Complaints  were  made  against  these  men.  Wesley  on  each 
occasion  investigated  these  complaints.  "He  found  one  or  two, 
who  did  not  walk  worthy  of  the  Gospel;  and  several  more  whom 
they  thought  utterly  unqualified  to  preach."102  Mr.  Parker  must 
have  been  one  of  these,  for  he  is  described  as  "a  more  artless 
preacher  I  never  heard."103  Conference  took  up  the  matter 
of  inefficient  lay  preachers,  and  intimated  that  many  were  un- 
qualified for  the  work,  having  neither  grace  nor  gifts;  but  the 

95Fitchett:  p.  205. 

86  Jour.,  vol.  iy,  pp.  43  and  275. 

97  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  142,  375,  note  i. 

98  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  273. 

"Moore:  Op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  414-415. 
00  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  viii,  p.  178. 

101  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  46. 

102  Whitehead :  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  264. 

103  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  248. 


76      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

more  serious  charges  against  lay  preachers,  Conference  dis- 
missed after  a  careful  investigation  as  advanced  without  founda- 
tion.104 

When  Wesley  saw  the  condition  of  the  material  which  he 
had  in  his  lay  preachers,  he  toiled  mightily  to  improve  it.  He 
made  an  agreement  with  Charles  Wesley  outlining  the  general 
principles  they  both  would  use  in  selecting  lay  preachers.  He 
exhorted  these  lay  preachers  not  to  be  lazy;  but  to  continue  at 
their  regular  trades,  or  else  to  devote  as  much  time  to  reading 
as  they  were  wont  to  devote  to  their  trades.  He  opposed  utterly 
a  lazy  or  ignorant  preacher.105  Later  on,  Conference  decided 
that  these  lay  preachers  must  give  up  their  work  in  order  to 
study,  if  they  would  preach  for  the  Methodists.106  Wesley 
read  to  his  preachers  from  the  best  theological  works  of  the 
times  to  improve  their  minds.107  He  looked  with  much  sym- 
pathy on  John  Fletcher's  plan  to  have  Kingswood  used  as  a 
school  to  prepare  ignorant  preachers  for  ordination.108  Nor 
were  the  little  things  forgotten.  Alexander  Coates  was  told  not 
to  contradict  the  tenets  of  other  sects,  especially  when  in  their 
churches;  neither  was  he  to  use  strong  rhetorical  expressions — 
he  was  to  keep  out  of  all  controversy.109  Wresley  felt  that  God 
made  practical  divinity  necessary,  and  the  devil  made  it  con- 
troversial. Hence  the  lay  preachers  were  to  avoid  all  contro- 
versy they  could.110  When  they  prayed  too  long,  talked  too 
long,  or  preached  over  an  hour,  Wesley  was  sure  to  be  heard 
from.111  He  kept  a  close  watch  on  all  their  doings.  Francis 
Wolf  was  told  he  was  "out  of  his  wits"  because  he  neglected 
to  come  to  Conference;  Thomas  Carlill  was  ordered  to  attend 
Conference  from  his  circuit  and  "none  other" ;  William  Stevens 
was  plainly  told  that  he  ought  to  marry;  and  even  William 
Shent  was  not  forgotten  in  the  hardships  of  his  old  age  though 

104  Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  73. 
05  Whitehead :  Op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  264%. 

106  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  77. 

107  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  192. 

108  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  p.  334. 
09Tyerman:  vol.  ii,  p  4i3ff. 
110  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  72. 

11  Tyerman :  vol.  ii,  p.  163. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  77 

he  had  left  the  Methodists  many  years  before  because  of  his 
bad  conduct.  Wesley  kept  a  careful  oversight  over  his  lay 
preachers.112  If  James  Oddie  forgot  the  annual  collection,  Wes- 
ley reminded  him  of  it;  if  Joseph  Taylor  ventured  to  wear  a 
surplice,  he  was  plainly  rebuked;  if  Joseph  Humphreys  became 
a  trifler  he  heard  about  orthodoxy;  and  when  Dr.  John  White- 
head  was  a  little  careless  of  the  condition  in  which  his  accounts 
were  brought  to  Conference,  he  was  told  to  bring  them  in  a 
proper  manner.113 

Wesley  urged  these  men  to  read  the  many  publications  put 
forth  by  his  press.  Methodist  publications  and  Methodist  publi- 
cations alone  should  be  used.114  He  even  edited  a  good  tract 
entitled  Directions  Concerning  Pronunciation  and  Gesture.  This 
was  to  aid  his  lay  preachers  in  their  public  speaking.115 

Although  Wesley  sought  in  every  way  to  improve  the  in- 
terests and  welfare  of  his  preachers,  yet  he  would  not  stand  in 
the  least  degree  any  opposition  from  them.  When  Alexander 
M'Nabe  objected  because  Wesley  brought  Mr.  Smyth,  a  regu- 
larly ordained  minister,  to  Bristol,  on  the  ground  that  the  Con- 
ference appointed  the  preachers  and  not  Wesley,  Wesley  cleared 
up  the  matter  by  stating  in  very  clear  terms  understood  by  all: 
"the  rules  of  our  preachers  were  fixed  by  me  before  any  Con- 
ference existed.  .  .  .  Above  all,  you  are  to  preach  when  and 
where  I  appoint."  Since  M'Nabe  would  not  submit,  he  was 
forced  out  of  the  society  and  Wesley  remained  as  an  autocrat.116 
John  Bennett  found  Wesley's  discipline  too  severe;  so  he  left 
too.  There  was  nothing  else  to  do.117  Wesley  had,  however, 
much  difficulty  in  maintaining  his  discipline.  But  he  would  not 
give  it  up  even  though  he  was  obliged  to  expel  many  lay  preachers 
after  a  long  time  of  service.  He  felt  that  the  way  of  efficiency 
was  discipline,  and  his  results  seemed  to  justify  the  means  he 
used.118 

2  Eayrs :  Letters  of  Wesley,  pp.  225,  227,  228,  235. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  2IQ,  214  221,  222. 

4  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  67. 
6  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  487. 

6  Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  262. 

7  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  15,  note  ii. 

8  Tyerman  :  vol.  i,  pp.  459-460. 


78      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Though  Wesley  was  careful  for  his  own  authority,  and 
kept  the  ecclesiastical  power  in  his  own  hands,  yet  he  was  also 
keen  to  see  that  the  temporal  wants  of  his  preachers  were  looked 
after.  This  was  a  very  real  problem,  for  oftentimes  the  poverty 
among  these  lay  preachers  was  distressing.119  A  special  fund 
was  inaugurated  for  the  benefit  of  old  preachers.  This  was 
raised  through  gifts  from  those  preachers  who  traveled  on  the 
circuits  and  also  from  the  people.  Old,  sickly  preachers  and 
their  families  had  first  claim  upon  this  fund;  then  came  the 
claims  of  the  widows.  The  purpose  of  all  this  was  to  encourage 
the  laymen  to  give  up  remunerative  employment  and  go  to 
preaching.120  In  1765,  this  fund  for  the  preachers  was  further 
organized,  and  Conference  declared  the  following  terms :  Every 
widow  of  a  preacher  was  to  receive  once  and  for  all  not  more 
than  forty  pounds;  every  child  not  more  than  ten  pounds;  every 
superannuated  preacher  was  not  to  receive  less  than  ten  pounds 
yearly.  But  if  any  preacher  failed  to  contribute  to  this  fund, 
or  "made  less  than  four  yearly  payments  into  it,"  he  could  not 
draw  from  it  in  his  time  of  need.121  Thus  were  the  lay  preachers 
systematically  safeguarded. 

Wesley  not  only  encouraged  laymen  to  preach;  but  he  also 
did  not  discourage  women  from  preaching.  In  dealing  in  this 
subject,  Wesley  was  always  guarded.  At  first  he  advised  the 
women  to  pray  all  they  cared  to  in  public,  but  not  to  take  a  text 
or  talk  above  five  minutes  at  a  time.  "Keep  as  far  from  what 
is  called  preaching  as  you  can"  was  his  advice.122  Later  on 
when  he  went  to  Wells,  a  seaport  town  twelve  miles  from  Faken- 
ham,  he  heard  Mrs.  Franklin  preach  at  the  peril  of  her  life.  She 
was  supported  by  another  young  woman  of  the  town  with  whom 
Wesley  conversed  at  length,  "and  found  her  very  sensible."123 
When  Miss  Bosanquet  asked  if  it  would  be  proper  for  her  to 
preach,  Wesley  concluded  that  it  would;  because  she  had  an 
extraordinary  call.  Nevertheless,  he  cautiously  added  that  he 


19  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  494. 

20  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  45. 

21  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  48. 
*2Tyerman:  vol.  iii,  p.  41. 

22  Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  338. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  79 

could  not  enforce  a  uniform  rule  in  every  instance.124  Thus 
in  a  careful  manner,  Wesley  gradually  became  more  favorable 
in  his  attitude  toward  preaching  by  the  women  interested  in  his 
cause.  This  being  the  trend  of  sentiment,  one  will  not  be  sur- 
prised to  read  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Conference  of  October  27, 
1787:  "We  give  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  Sally  Mallett 
and  shall  have  no  objection  to  her  being  a  preacher  in  our  con- 
nexion, so  long  as  she  continues  to  preach  the  Methodist  Doc- 
trine and  attends  to  our  discipline."  This  was  duly  signed  by 
Joshua  Harper,  but  contained  this  footnote :  "B.  N.  You  receive 
this  by  order  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Conference."  Evidently,  the 
Methodists  quite  approved  of  women  preachers,  but  intended 
to  keep  them  under  firm  control.125  When  one  can  realize  how 
utterly  opposed  the  clergy  were  to  lay  preachers,  one  can  in 
some  degree  realize  how  it  must  have  antagonized  them  to  see 
women  going  about  and  acting  the  part  of  preachers.  Wesley's 
employment  of  women  could  not  work  for  reconciliation  be- 
tween the  Methodists  and  the  Church. 

The  opposition  to  the  lay  preachers  was  a  constant  factor 
of  strife  between  the  Methodists  and  the  clergy.  The  lay  preach- 
ers were  not  always  diplomatic.  J.  Benson  rebuked  Dr.  Tatham 
of  Oxford,  and  reminded  him  that  Jesus  himself  was  an  un- 
taught, itinerating  preacher,  and  that  the  disciples  came  into 
the  same  class.126  Collin  issued  a  pamphlet  to  the  "higher  ranks 
of  people"  and  vigorously  defended  himself  against  the  charges 
of  being  too  young,  and  of  being  too  vehement  in  his  address 
to  the  people.  He  said  that  none  should  say  of  him  that  it  was 
unsuitable  of  him  to  preach  only  from  the  Bible.127  If  the  lay 
preachers  were  not  always  diplomatic,  those  who  opposed  them 
were  the  same.  The  clergy  seemed  utterly  to  fail  to  understand, 
and  therefore  to  misjudge  these  men.  The  clergy  accused  them 
of  promoting  heresy  within  the  Church  because  they  preached 
"that  Christians  are  under  no  obligation  to  observe  the  ten 


24  Tyerman  :  vol.  iii,  p.  112. 
125  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  iii,  p.  74. 


126  Defence  of  Meth.,  p.  44. 

127  An  Address  to   the  Higher  Ranks  of  People  in  the  Parish  of  St. 
Mary  Hull,  p.  16. 


80      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

commandments;  that  the  Church  has  done  all  for  us,  and  that 
we  need  therefore  do  nothing  for  ourselves."128  One  lay 
preacher  was  accused  of  setting  a  date  for  the  end  of  the  world. 
An  old  man  who  listened  to  this  statement  believed  it  and  turned 
all  of  his  cows  into  his  corn,  let  his  fences  go,  permitted  his 
apprentice  to  beat  himself  and  his  wife  to  cleanse  them  from  sin, 
and  then  continued  to  live  three  years  longer  on  this  earth  with 
the  Methodists.129  If  some  lay  preachers  did  put  forth  such 
ideas  as  these,  it  was  not  correct  to  judge  the  whole  body  of  them 
as  doing  the  same  thing. 

The  manner  of  preaching  adopted  by  some  lay  preachers 
was  very  disagreeable  to  the  clergy.  They  were  boisterous 
and  shocking,  and  were  said  to  adopt  the  best  of  their  skill  to 
alarm  the  imagination,  "to  raise  a  ferment  in  the  passions,  often 
attended  with  trembling  and  screaming  in  the  body.  .  .  .  the 
preacher  has  his  recourse  to  still  more  frightful  representations ; 
that  he  sees  hell  flames  flashing  in  their  faces;  and  that  they 
are  now !  now !  now !  dropping  into  hell !  into  the  bottom  of  hell ! 
This  boisterous  method  seldom  or  never  fails  to  set  them  scream- 
ing and  very  often  they  grow  distracted."130  The  clergy  thought 
that  preaching  did  not  consist  in  "noise  and  tone,  looks  and  ges- 
tures; in  figures  and  mysteries;  in  privileges  and  promises."131 
This  type  of  preaching  ought  to  have  been  condemned;  but  it 
was  not  typical  of  all  lay  preachers.  Criticism  by  the  clergy, 
however,  went  farther  than  this.  They  accused  these  lay  preach- 
ers of  fraud;  they  were  said  to  go  to  preaching  because  they 
were  idle  and  conceited;  they  pretended  to  expound  by  inspira- 
tion. 132  Rowland  Hill  asked:  "But  who  are  these  lay  lubbers? 
They  are  Wesley's  ragged  legion  of  preaching  tinkers,  scaven- 
gers, draymen,  and  chimney  sweepers.  No  man  would  do  this 
unless  he  were  as  unprincipled  as  a  rook."133  Wesley  did  not 
stoop  to  combat  such  slander  as  this.  "Let  all  the  world  judge 
between  Mr.  Hill  and  me"  was  his  only  answer.  In  verse,  these 

128  Letter  from  Clergyman  to  one  of  his  Parishioners,  p.  24. 

129  Evans :  Op.  cit.}  p.  128. 

130  Ibid.,  p.  119. 

131  Grey:  Serious  Address  to  Lay  Meth.,  p.  12. 
12  Evans:  Op.  cit.,  p.  116. 

133  Works,  vol.  vi.,  p.  198. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  81 

lay  preachers  were  lampooned.  They  were  compared  with 
vermin ;  called  "prentices  from  spouting  clubs" ;  named  horse- 
leeches, etc.134  Now  whatever  else  one  might  say  of  these  lay 
preachers,  the  majority  of  them  were  sincere  and  hard  workers. 
It  was  lack  of  vision  that  made  the  clergy  fail  to  see  their  use- 
fulness to  England  and  to  the  Church.  Had  they  been  encour- 
aged, they  would  have  done  for  England  what  they  have  already 
done  for  America.  Wesley  claimed  to  forever  have  answered 
all  objections  when  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Clark  he  wrote:  "O  Sir, 
what  an  idle  thing  it  is  for  you  to  dispute  about  lay  preachers! 
Is  not  a  lay  preacher  preferable  to  a  drunken  preacher?  to  a 
cursing,  swearing  preacher?"135  Yet  in  this  time  of  unhappy 
friction,  there  were  those  who  could  overcome  prejudice.  Mr. 
Brackenberg,  who  was  at  first  staggered  at  lay  preachers,  finally 
became  convinced  of  their  worth  and  began  to  preach  himself.13 
Opposition  to  lay  preachers  in  thought,  was  most  logically 
accompanied  by  opposition  in  action.  Mr.  Westell  was  arrested 
in  Cornwall  for  preaching ;  and  at  the  quarter  session  at  Bodmin, 
the  court  declared  his  arrest  to  be  contrary  to  all  law;  so  he 
was  released.137  Methodists'  opponents  used  impressment  as 
a  means  of  getting  rid  of  lay  preachers.  An  attempt  was  made 
at  Epworth  to  press  Richard  Moss  for  a  soldier;  but  it  failed.138 
Thomas  Maxfield  actually  was  pressed  for  the  navy,  because  he 
was  a  disturber  of  the  public  peace.  At  Penzance  he  was  thrown 
into  a  dungeon ;  but  the  captain  of  a  man-of-war  would  not  take 
him;  hence  they  were  obliged  to  release  him.139  Thomas  Beard, 
who  was  described  as  a  quiet  man,  was  pressed  for  a  soldier. 
Not  being  strong,  he  was  soon  invalided,  sent  home,  and  soon 
after  died.140  More  violent  methods  were  adopted  against  other 
lay  preachers.  John  Nelson  was  taken  before  the  aldermen  of 
Nottingham  for  making  riot;  but  the  constable  was  ordered  to 
return  Nelson  to  the  house  from  which  he  was  taken.141  In 

184  Methodist  and  Mimic,  pp.  15  and  20. 

185  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  287. 
™  Jour.,  vol.  yi,  p.  115. 

"  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  251. 

38  Ibid.,  vol.   iii,  p.  200. 

39  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  184. 

40  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  141. 
141  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  239*?. 


82      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

•x. 

Acomb,  on  Good  Friday,  while  preaching,  he  was  struck  with 
a  brick  and  knocked  senseless.  Later  on,  in  the  same  day,  he  was 
jumped  on.142 

Thus  the  opposition  continued,  and  it  only  served  to 
strengthen  the  lay  preachers  in  their  convictions.143  They 
fought  against  being  licensed  as  Dissenters.  Sometimes  they 
were  licensed  as  members  of  the  Church  of  England;  but  more 
frequently  they  were  licensed  as  Dissenters.  When  this  was 
the  case,  they  took  these  licenses;  but  still  maintained  they  were 
Churchmen.  According  to  Wesley,  the  greater  part  of  them 
were  not  licensed  at  all.144  This  practice  could  not  but  rouse 
the  ire  of  loyal  Churchmen  who  were  careful  for  legality. 

Hence  we  have  a  distinct  practice — the  employment  of  lay 
preachers — coming  into  Methodism.  Clergymen  of  the  Church 
were  often  more  ignorant  than  these  lay  preachers;  so  the  latter 
gradually  usurped  more  and  more  functions  of  the  regular 
clergy.  At  Norwich,  one  of  these  preachers  even  ventured  to 
baptize  and  administer  the  sacrament.145  Hampson  admitted 
these  men  were  popular  with  the  poor;  though  not  with  the 
rich.146  And  he  also  pointed  out  the  fact  that  this  system  gave 
Methodism  a  perpetual  supply  of  preachers.  Indeed,  there  was 
a  reserve  list.  Lelievre  held  the  opinion :  "Ce  fut  Tune  des  inno- 
vations qui  valurent  a  Wesley  le  plus  de  critiques  de  la  part  de 
tous  ceux  qui  faisaient  passer  le  formalisme  ecclesiastique  avant 
toute  autre  consideration.  Us  ne  lui  pardonnaient  pas  de  laisser 
precher  des  hommes  qui  n'avaient  pas  recu  la  consecration  episco- 
pale."147  Overton  agreed  with  this;  for  he  held  that  although 
field  preaching  was  no  breach  of  the  law,  yet  preaching  by  a 
layman  was  not  only  a  breach  of  the  law,  but  also  a  breach  of 
the  customs  of  the  times  as  well.148  Nevertheless,  Cadman  force- 
fully concluded,  "It  is  apparent  that  they  not  only*  met  a  national 


142  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  290. 

143  Vide  Barr:  Op.  cit.,  Chap,  v  for  the  best  account  of  this. 

144  Jour.,  vol.  v,  p.  278. 

145  Bradburn :   The  Question:  Are  Methodists  Dissenters?,  p.   n. 
148  Op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  79. 

147  Op.  cit.,  p.  138. 

148  Evangelical  Revival,  p.  86. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  83 

emergency,  but  that  on  the  whole  they  were  the  best  equipped 
men  to  meet  it."149 

For  good,  or  for  ill,  the  practice  of  lay  preaching  came 
in  and  remained  with  the  Methodists.  The  clergy  opposed  it. 
Therefore  it  did  not  make  for  harmony  between  the  Methodists 
and  the  Church. 

SECTION  V.    THE  FIRST  METHODIST  ORDINATIONS 

If  the  use  of  lay  preachers  worked  for  an  estrangement 
between  the  Methodists  and  the  Church,  the  Methodist  practice 
of  the  rites  of  ordination  worked  even  more  violently  to  make 
the  cleavage  more  pronounced.  The  members  of  the  Established 
Church  felt  that  episcopacy  was  not  only  the  strength  of  the 
Church,  but  also  the  unifying  force  in  the  nation;  hence  it  was 
jealously  guarded.  Archbishop  Seeker  said:  "Without  main- 
taining that  they  [Dissenters]  have  no  gospel  ministers,  or  sacra- 
ments, or  ordinances,  or  churches,  we  may  apprehend — whether 
rightly  or  wrongly  is  not  to  be  disputed  now,  but  sincerely — 
that  episcopacy  is  of  apostolical  institution,  and  the  Scripture 
affords  as  good  a  proof  of  this  as  of  the  appointment  of  infant 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Day."150  Charles  Daubney  clearly  ex- 
pressed the  prevailing  opinion  of  his  day  when  he  said  that 
the  sacraments  administered  in  the  Church  and  by  regularly 
ordained  clergymen,  were  the  only  valid  sacraments.151  Samuel 
Horsley,  as  late  as  1830,  denounced  those  who  denied  the 
authority  of  priests  and  bishops  as  little  better  than  infidels  in 
masquerade.152  Thomas  Sikes  advocated  a  most  thorough- 
going theory  of  apostolic  succession.153  The  Established  Church 
was  considered  an  institution  possessed  of  divine  grace  inde- 
pendent of  its  members.  This  grace  was  bestowed  through  the 
bishops.  It  was  in  the  midst  of  this  theory  of  the  Church  that 
John  Wesley  lived  and  acted. 

Not  everyone  accepted  this  view  of  the  Church.  The  Bishop 


Op.  tit.,  p.  329. 


149 , 

160  A.  J.  Mason :  Church  of  England  and  the  Episcopacy,  p.  405. 

161  Ibid.,  p.  422. 


162  Ibid.,  p.  412. 

163  Ibid.,  p.  423. 


84      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

of  Bangor  departed  from  it  when  he  said,  "Sincerity  is  the  only 
thing  that  counts."  The  logical  conclusion  of  his  attitude  was 
to  make  Quakers,  Presbyterians,  Independents,  as  valid  as 
Churchmen;  and  William  Law  told  the  bishop  so.154 

At  first,  Wesley  accepted  the  usual  position  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church  of  his  day.  In  his  sermon,  On  the  Ministerial 
Office,  1789,  he  declared:  "I  cannot  prove  from  any  part  of  the 
New  Testament  or  from  any  author  from  the  first  three  cen- 
turies, that  the  office  of  an  evangelist  gave  any  man  the  right 
to  act  as  a  pastor  or  a  bishop."  This  sermon  discusses  Wesley's 
attitude  toward  his  lay  preachers.  He  insisted  that  these  men 
were  appointed  to  preach  and  to  do  nothing  more.  That  they 
were  ever  to  serve  the  sacrament  was  a  thought  farthest  from 
his  head,  as  was  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  when  some  of  them 
baptized  at  Norwich,  he  made  them  promise  to  do  so  no  more. 
He  maintained  that  in  the  Established  Church,  "persons  may 
be  authorized  to  preach,  yea,  may  be  doctors  of  divinity.  .  .  . 
who  are  not  ordained  at  all,  and  consequently  have  no  right  to 
administer  the  Lord's  Supper."  When  lay  preachers,  as  Max- 
field,  Westell,  and  Richards,  were  received,  he  was  careful  to 
explain  that  these  were  received  as  prophets  and  not  as  priests. 
They  were  not  to  administer  the  sacraments.  Indeed,  there  was 
no  need  of  ordaining  lay  preachers,  for  they  could  get  along 
without  it  and  be  effective.155  This  was  the  gist  of  the  sermon. 

But  aside  from  the  practical  exigencies  of  the  occasion, 
Wesley  read  two  books  which  made  him  change  his  mind.  He 
read  Bishop  Stillingfleet's  Irenicon.  The  author  of  this  book 
was  but  twenty-four  years  old,  and  later  openly  avowed  that  he 
did  not  accept  the  principles  in  it.156  Wesley,  however,  did  not 
change  when  once  converted  to  Stillingfleet's  early  view;  for 
he  said  of  the  episcopacy,  "that  it  is  prescribed  in  Scripture,  I 
do  not  believe."157  Peter  King,  later  Lord  King,  a  Scotch 
Judge,  wrote  the  second  book — The  Primitive  Church — which 
influenced  Wesley.  This  work,  published  about  1700,  came  out 

184  A.  J.  Mason :  Church  of  England  and  the  Episcopacy,  p.  385. 
165  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  54off. 
158  Mason :  Op.  cit.,  p.  408. 
167  Tyerman :  vol.  ii,  p.  244. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  85 

strongly  against  episcopacy.  After  reading  it,  Wesley  voiced 
his  change  of  opinion  by  stating:  "In  spite  of  the  vehement 
prejudice  of  my  education,  I  was  ready  to  believe  that  this  was 
a  fair  and  impartial  draft;  but  if  so  it  would  follow  that  bishops 
and  presbyters  are  essentially  of  one  order,  and  that  originally 
every  Christian  congregation  was  a  Church  independent  of  all 
others."158  In  1745,  he  wrote  to  a  friend,  that  he  believed  it 
wrong  to  administer  sacrament  without  ordination  from  a 
bishop.159  And  within  one  year  Wesley  and  his  Conference 
were  at  work  denouncing  this  High  Church  rule.  Hence,  we  are 
not  surprised  to  hear  him  say,  "When  I  said,  'I  believe  I  am 
a  spiritual  bishop,'  I  spoke  on  Lord  King's  supposition  that 
bishops  and  presbyters  are  essentially  one  order."160  Fitchett 
explains  the  new  view  to  which  Wesley  was  won  over  as  follows : 
"Christ  was  present  in  his  Church.  His  grace  did  not  trickle 
exclusively  through  some  poor,  little,  uncertain,  and  solitary, 
human  pipe;  it  did  not  depend  upon  the  touch  of  a  particular 
set  of  ordaining  hands  on  certain  human  heads.  It  was  Christ's 
direct  gift  to  the  human  soul."161  Or  as  President  McGiffert 
states  it:  "but  high  churchism  departs  entirely  from  the  primi- 
tive position.  For  in  the  primitive  period  as  we  have  seen,  the 
Church  of  Christ  was  not  regarded  as  an  institution  possessed 
of  divine  grace  independently  of  its  members.  ...  no  special 
priest  class  existed  endowed  with  sacerdotal  powers  not  shared 
by  Christians  in  general;  and  ordination,  so  far  as  it  was  em- 
ployed at  all,  imparted  no  special  grace,  was  not  in  the  least 
requisite'  to  the  valid  administration  of  the  rites  later  known 
as  sacraments."162  This  was  substantially  the  view  of  the 
Church  to  which  Wesley  was  converted. 

One  cannot  suppose  that  the  line  of  demarcation  between 
Wesley's  opposing  views  of  ordination  was  clear  cut.  At  first, 
in  spite  of  any  of  his  ideas,  he  was  careful  to  have  any  of  his 
men,  who  should  administer  the  sacrament,  ordained  by  the 


158  Mason :  Op.  cit.,  p.  407. 

59  Tyerman :  vol.  i,  pp.  496  and  509. 

160  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  324. 

161  Fitchett :  Op.  cit.,  p.  405. 

162  A m.  Jour,  of  Theology,  1902,  p.  438. 


86      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

regular  bishops.  In  1763,  Thomas  Maxfield  was  so  ordained 
by  the  Bishop  of  Londonderry,  who  said  to  him,  "Sir,  I  ordain 
you  to  assist  that  good  man,  that  he  may  not  work  himself  to 
death/'163 

When  the  bishops  of  the  Established  Church  would  no 
longer  ordain  for  Wesley,  he  desired  to  get  around  the  matter 
by  having  a  certain  bishop,  named  Erasmus,  of  the  Greek  Church, 
ordain  some  helpers  for  him.  The  Greek  Bishop  did  this  for 
Wesley,  but  it  was  not  repeated  because  of  discontent.164  Law- 
rence Coughlan,  an  Irish  preacher  so  ordained,  later  was  or- 
dained by  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  sent  to  Newfoundland 
as  a  missionary.165  Dr.  Thomas  Rutherford  was  much  pro- 
voked at  this,  and  said  the  Methodists  pretended  to  be  loyal 
sons  of  the  Church,  and  yet  acted  contrary  to  such  a  belief.166 
Neither  did  the  Countess  of  Huntingdon  approve  of  this;  she 
suspected  that  Erasmus  was  some  kind  of  fraud.167  Taken  all 
in  all,  Wesley  did  not  do  a  wise  thing  in  employing  the  services 
of  this  Greek  Bishop.  It  was  undoubtedly  a  via  media  policy; 
and  as  such  satisfied  no  one.  It  made  Wesley  appear  incon- 
sistent. He  frankly  admitted  the  fact,  and  declared  that  this, 
j  his  principle,  was  twofold:  (a)  he  would  not  separate  from  the 
Church,  yet  (b)  he  would  vary  from  it.168  This  explanation 
undoubtedly  satisfied  nobody  save  Wesley  himself. 

The  ordinations  by  Bishop  Erasmus  did  not  allay  the  desire 
of  the  Methodists  for  more  preachers  who  would  give  them  the 
sacraments.  In  1775,  Joseph  Benson  urged  that  it  would  be  a 
benefit  to  young  preachers  if  John  and  Charles  Wesley,  together 
with  Fletcher,  should  lay  hands  upon  them  after  they  had  fasted 
and  prayed.  But  in  making  this  suggestion,  Benson  did  not 
once  use  the  term  "ordination."169  In  1782,  Wesley  "set  apart" 
Adam  Clarke  and  Cownly  by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  These 
were  set  apart  only  to  preach,  and  not  to  administer  sacraments. 


163  Overton :  Life  of  Wesley,  p.  163. 

164  Lecky :  Hist,  of  Eng.  in  i8th  Century,  vol.  ii,  p.  688. 
185  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  297,  note  i. 

86  Tyerman :  vol.  ii,  p.  490. 

167  Life  and  Times  of  Selina,  Countess  of  Huntingdon,  vol.  i,  p.  331. 
188  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  543. 
169  Jour.,  vol.  viii,  p.  329. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  87 

Indeed,  they  did  not  administer  any  sacrament  until  I788.170 
Wesley  still  was  hesitating.  His  beliefs  had  not  ripened  into 
action. 

At  length,  in  1784,  having  with  a  few  select  friends  weighed 
the  matter  thoroughly,  he  yielded  to  their  judgment.171  Wesley 
determined  to  act  upon  the  matter  by  bringing  into  use  a  theory 
which  he  had  held  for  many  years,  namely  that  there  was  no 
distinction  between  presbyters  and  bishops.172  Hence  he  "set 
apart"  Whatcoat,  Vasey,  and  Dr.  Coke,  not  only  to  preach,  but 
also  to  administer  the  sacrament.173  In  this  ceremony,  Cownly 
and  Clarke,  who  had  the  year  before  been  set  apart  to  preach 
only,  aided  Wesley.  None  of  these  men,  however,  were  to 
administer  the  sacrament  in  England.174  These  men  were  to 
serve  America — not  England.17^)  In  1785,  Pawson,  Hanby,  and 
J.  Taylor  were  ordained  to  go  to  Scotland.  Wesley  did  not 
defend  this  action  before  the  Church  of  England,  but  rather 
asserted  that  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Established  Church; 
because  the  Scottish  Church  never  had  dealings  with  the  Eng- 
lish. He  did  not  separate  from  the  Scottish  Church ;  for  he  had 
never  been  a  member  of  it.  Therefore,  concluded  Wesley, 
"whatever  is  done  then,  either  in  America  or  Scotland,  is  no~ 
separation  from  the  Church  of  England."176  Wesley  was  now 
becoming  more  definite  in  his  actions  of  ordination;  for  in  1786 
the  ordinations  were  not  conducted  in  a  small  room  with  but 
few  around,  but  at  the  regular  Conference  session.177  In  1788, 
the  time  for  ordination  was  changed  from  the  quiet  hour  of 
four  o'clock  in  the  morning  to  a  more  conspicuous  time,  such 
as  half  past  ten  in  the  morning  and  half  past  three  in  the  after- 
noon. He  ordained  deacons  one  day  and  elders  the  next.178 
It  was  also  in  1788  that  Wesley  first  ordained  a  person  to  work 
on  an  English  circuit.  Previously  he  had  ordained  persons  only 

170  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  pp.  145-146. 

171  Jour.,  vol.  vii,  p.  101. 

172  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  2. 

173  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  15. 

74  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  ix,  p.  148*! 
175  Jackson :  Life  of  Charles  Wesley,  p.  719. 
178  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  315. 

177  Jour.,  vol.  vii,  p.  119. 

178  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  ix.,  pp.  151-152. 


88      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

to  work  outside  of  England.179  Wesley  was  slow  and  hesitating 
about  ordaining  men.  It  would  sometimes  seem  as  though  he 
was  reluctantly  pushed  into  it  by  his  followers.  But  once  having 
crossed  his  Rubicon,  there  was  no  thought  of  turning  back.  Mr. 
Henderson  of  Pembroke  asked  Wesley  to  desist  from  ordaining, 
and  sent  him  a  list  of  authorities  to  read  in  connection  with  this 
action.  But  the  erstwhile  vacillating  Wesley  had  made  up  his 
mind,  and  told  Henderson  that  he  had  no  time  to  go  into  the 
matter;  because  life  was  too  short.180 

But  why  did  Wesley  ordain  ?  Was  it  to  further  antagonism 
between  the  Established  Church  and  Methodism;  to  fulfill  a 
theory  that  was  held  ;  or  to  meet  a  practical  need  ?  The  instance 
of  the  first  ordinations  for  America  may  give  an  answer  to  this 
query. 

America  had  received  scant  attention  from  the  Methodists 
or  any  other  religious  body.  American  Methodists  had  sent  a 
request  to  the  Conference  at  Leeds  in  1769,  whereupon  the  Con- 
ference had  sent  Richard  Boardman  and  Joseph  Pilmoor  over 
to  New  York.  At  the  same  Conference  fifty  pounds  was  sub- 
scribed for  the  work  in  America.181  Practically  nothing  else 
was  done  for  many  years  after,  and  all  the  while  religious  affairs 
in  America  were  going  from  bad  to  worse.  It  was  with  great 
difficulty  that  men  were  forced  to  go  to  America.  It  was  with 
greater  difficulty  that  Americans  were  persuaded  to  go  to  Eng- 
land for  ordination  which  they  could  not  obtain  in  America. 
And  "one  in  five,  it  has  been  calculated,  of  all  those  who  set  out 
returned  no  more,"  because  they  succumbed  so  easily  to  the 
smallpox.  The  teachers  whom  the  Established  Church  did  send 
out  were  backed  by  no  common  bond  of  visible  unity;  had  no 
directing  head  ;  no  power  to  ordain  ;  they  were  kept  like  a  garri- 
son in  a  foreign  church.  The  result  was  what  might  have  been 
foretold,  "the  Church  languished  and  almost  passed  away."182 
The  Church  in  America  was  administered  by  the  Bishop  of 
London;  but  when  Gibson  became  bishop  he  found  himself  with- 

179  Jour.,  vol.  vii,  p.  421,  note  ii. 

180  Hampson  :  vol.  ii,  p.  202. 


.,  vol.  v,  p.  330,  and  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  86. 
Wilberforce  :  History  of  the  American  Church,  p.  133. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  89 

out  legal  right  to  administer  American  affairs,  and  so  the  colonies 
were  separated  from  all  episcopal  control  until  the  crown  in- 
vested Gibson  with  special  powers  for  America,  and  when  he 
died  even  this  personal  jurisdiction  ceased.183 

Since  the  bishop  was  so  far  away,  conduct  among  the  clergy 
became  very  loose.  In  Maryland  the  state  had  to  step  in  and  use 
discipline.  In  Virginia  fearless  clergymen  were  unpopular  and 
easily  dismissed  from  their  churches.  Only  pleasing  pastors  were 
chosen  to  serve  in  parishes.  "Thus  on  every  hand  the  Church 
was  weakened  and  the  laity  robbed  of  the  sacrament/'184  Seri- 
ous was  the  shortage  of  clergymen  after  the  Revolution ;  indeed, 
so  serious,  that  Seabury  went  to  England  to  obtain  consecration 
to  the  episcopal  office.  "After  waiting  for  two  years,  his  request 
was  denied.  He  then  applied  to  the  Scottish  bishops.  .  .  .  and 
from  them  he  at  length  received  the  desired  honor."  Yet  the 
Methodists  had  no  use  for  Seabury.185  The  clergy  of  Con- 
necticut asked  for  a  resident  bishop,  but  did  not  obtain  one.186 
To  think  that  the  bishops  were  ignorant  and  did  nothing  in 
regard  to  the  American  situation  would  be  wrong.  After  Dr. 
Berkeley  had  died  in  1753  Bishops  Butler,  Sherlock,  and  Gibson 
clearly  pointed  out  America's  need ;  but  with  the  state  politicians 
it  availed  nothing.187  Archbishop  Seeker  in  his  will  appro- 
priated 1,000  pounds  for  establishing  bishops  in  America,  show- 
ing that  America  was  not  entirely  forgotten.188 

Nevertheless,  Dr.  A.  L.  Cross  in  his  work,  The  Anglican 
Episcopate  and  the  American  Colonies,  says  regarding  this  policy 
of  the  Church  toward  the  American  colonies:  "Except  for  a 
certain  oversight  in  matters  of  political  and  constitutional  sig- 
nificance, it  was  marked  by  an  almost  total  disregard  of  Ameri- 
can ecclesiastical  affairs.  .  .  ,"189  In  general,  little  was  done. 

With  matters  in  this  condition,  some  Churchmen  in  America 
wrote  to  John  Wesley,  asking  him  if  he  would  procure  for  them 

™Ibid.,  pp.  135-137. 

184  Ibid.,  p.  139  et  circa. 

185 Jackson:  Life  of  C.  Wesley,  p.  718. 

l88Wilberforce:  Op.  cit.,  163. 

87  Samuel  Wilberforce:  Op.  cit.,  p.  157. 

188  Porteus :  Life  of  Seeker,  p.  li. 

189  Op.  cit.,  p.  137- 


90      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

the  ordination  of  a  young  man  by  one  of  the  English  bishops. 
They  explained  that  they  did  not  apply  to  the  Society  for  Propa- 
gating Christian  Knowledge  in  Foreign  Parts,  because  they  did 
not  wish  any  financial  aid  from  that  fund.190  Wesley  interested 
himself  in  this  matter,  and  persuaded  a  Mr.  Hoskins  to  apply 
to  Bishop  Lowth  for  orders.  Bishop  Lowth,  however,  would 
not  ordain  Hoskins,  because  the  request  had  not  come  through 
the  above  mentioned  society,  and  because  he  thought  there  were 
enough  men  already  in  America.191  Wesley  was  as  interested 
in  saving  men  in  America  as  he  was  in  England.  He  knew 
that  there  were  thousands  of  people  in  America  without  the 
sacraments.  The  questions  were :  Were  unordained  ministers  to 
administer  the  sacraments ;  or  was  an  effort  to  be  made  to  get 
enough  ordained  clergy  to  supply  the  need;  or  was  Wesley  to 
assume  episcopal  functions?192  Wesley  did  the  latter,  and  Cur- 
teis  said :  "Let  anyone  read  Wilberforce's  History  of  the  Ameri- 
can Church,  and  he  will  find  it  absolutely  impossible  to  speak 
another  harsh  word  of  Wesley's  irregular  conduct  in  1784."  19a 
Wesley  himself  stated  his  attitude  toward  his  ordaining  in 
detail :  "But  I  have  refused,  not  only  for  peace  sake,  but  because 
I  was  determined  as  little  as  possible  to  violate  the  established 
order  of  the  national  Church  to  which  I  belonged.  But  the  case 
is  widely  different  between  England  and  North  America.  Here 
there  are  bishops  who  have  legal  jurisdiction.  In  America  there 
are  none.  Neither  any  parish  ministers.  So  that  for  some  hun- 
dred miles  together,  there  is  none  either  to  baptize  or  to  adminis- 
ter the  Lord's  Supper.  Here,  therefore,  my  scruples  are  at  an 
end;  and  I  conceive  myself  at  full  liberty,  as  I  violate  no  order 
and  no  man's  right  by  appointing  and  sending  laborers  into  the 
harvest."  194  To  further  emphasize  this  he  said  of  his  action : 
"I  exercised  that  power  which  I  am  fully  persuaded  the  great 
shepherd  and  Bishop  of  the  Church  has  given  me.  ...  These 
are  the  steps  which,  not  of  choice,  but  necessity,  I  have  slowly 


190  Moore:  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  233. 

191  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  230. 
92Tyerman:  vol.  iii,  p.  331. 

93  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  ix,  p.  147. 
194  Moore :  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  pp.  273-275. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  91 

:and  deliberately  taken.     If  anyone  is  pleased  to  call  this  sepa- 

i  ration  he  may/'195     So  firmly  was  he  convinced  of  the  justice 

[  of  his  conduct,  that  he  announced  to  all  who  would  bring  him 

j  to  task :  "If  anyone  is  minded  to  dispute,  concerning  Diocesan 

Episcopacy,  he  may  dispute.    But  I  have  better  work."196    Wes- 

,  ley  ordained  for  no  other  motive  than  that  of  expediency.     It 

was  the  same  old  story:  Men  needed  to  be  saved;  America 

needed  to  be  saved,  and  he  was  willing  to  go  to  all  lengths  to 

see  this  salvation  take  place.    He  worked,  not  in  the  theoretical 

world  of  theology,  but  in  the  world  of  practice. 

At  the   time  when   Wesley   ordained   Coke    for   work   in 
America,    it   was   very   doubtful   whether   he   thought   of    this 
man  as  ever  becoming  bishop.     Tyerman  said  that  Coke  was 
ambitious,    and   wished   it   to   be   considered   as   an   ordination 
to  a  bishopric.197     Indeed,  he  was  so  ambitious  that  he  was 
willing  to  go  back  into  the  Established  Church  if  they  would 
make  him  a  bishop.    Whether  this  was  so  or  not,  Coke  himself 
began  to  speak  of  an  episcopacy  at  the  ordination  service  of 
Asbury,  and  openly  advocated  it.198     He  spoke  of  himself  as  a 
Protestant  defender  of  the  episcopacy,  and  referred  to  the  Meth- 
odist superintendents  as  "bishops,"  with  every  qualification  that 
those  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  had.199     Asbury  evidently 
was  a  ready  pupil  of  Coke's  idea,  for  Wesley  wrote  to  him  in 
the  same  year  he  was  ordained :  "One  instance  of  this,  of  your 
greatness,  has  given  me  great  concern.    How  can  you,  how  dare 
you,  suffer  yourself  to  be  called  a  bishop?  .  .  .  Men  may  call 
me  a  knave  or  a  fool;  a  rascal,  a  scoundrel,  and  I  am  content; 
but  they  shall  never,  by  my  consent,  call  me  a  bishop !     For  my 
sake,  for  God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end  to  this  !"200 
But  Asbury  and  Coke  did  not  put  a  full  end  to  this;  they  went 
|  so  far  as  to  name  Cokesbury  College  after  themselves.     This 
drew  the  fire  from  Wesley.     He  wrote  to  Asbury:  "I  study  to 
be  little;  you  study  to  be  great.     I  creep;  you  strut  along.     I 

195  Of  Separation  from  the  Church,  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  314. 
198  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  I79ff- 

197  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  iii,  p.  434. 

198  Coke :  Substance  of  a  Sermon  at  Asbury' s  Ordination,  p.  9. 

199  P.  8. 

200  Moore :  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  pp.  285-286. 


92      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

found  a  school;  you  a  college!  nay,  and  call  it  after  your  own 
names!  O,  beware!"201  Hence  one  can  see  that  Wesley  in- 
tended to  establish  no  more  bishoprics  in  the  world.  Moore 
related  that  Wesley  never  gave  sanction  to  the  departures  in 
America — in  spite  of  Whitehead  to  the  contrary — for  he  had 
seen  enough  of  bishops  and  bishoprics  as  they  were  then  dis- 
played in  the  Established  Church.202  The  religious  develop- 
ments in  America  got  beyond  his  control. 

It  is  only  too  obvious  to  state  that  the  opposition  which 
Wesley  faced  was  very  sincere  and  very  bitter.  The  clergy 
could  not  forgive  him  for  this,  which  they  considered  the  greatest 
sin  of  all.  Charles  Wesley  was  especially  aroused  over  the 
matter.  Nothing  Wesley  ever  said  or  did  gave  his  brother  so 
much  offense  as  these  ordinations;  for  Charles  Wesley  adhered 
to  the  principle  of  apostolic  succession.203  He  expressed  his 
wrath  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Chandler  in  saying,  "I  can  scarcely  be- 
lieve it,  that  in  his  eighty-second  year,  my  old  intimate  friend 
and  companion,  should  have  assumed  the  episcopal  character, 
ordained  elders,  consecrated  a  bishop,  and  sent  him  to  ordain 
our  lay  preachers  in  America/'204  Again  he  wrote  to  his  brother, 
John  Wesley,  "I  am  on  the  brink  of  the  grave.  Do  not  push 
me  in  and  embitter  my  last  moments.  Let  us  not  leave  an 
indelible  blot  on  our  memory;  but  let  us  leave  behind  us  the 
name  and  character  of  honest  men."205  Charles  went  even 
further  and  stated  that  John  Wesley  separated  from  the  Church 
because  he  had  ordained.  Ordination  was  ipso  facto  separa- 
tion.206 Wesley  stoutly  denied  that  he  had  in  any  wise  sepa- 
rated; for  he  answered  all  of  Charles's  objections  with  a  state- 
ment" of  his  principles :  "I  believe  I  am  a  spiritual  overseer  as 
much  as  any  man  in  England,  or  in  Europe,  for  the  uninter- 
rupted succession  I  know  to  be  a  fable,  which  no  man  ever  did 
or  can  prove.  But  this  does  in  no  wise  interfere  with  my  remain- 
ing within  the  Church,  from  which  I  have  no  more  desire  to 

Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  187. 
202  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  279. 
203 Jackson:  Life  of  C.  Wesley,  p.  724. 

204  Ibid,,  Op.  «V.,  p.  727. 

205  Ibid.,  p.  729. 

206  Ibid.,  p.  730. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  93 

separate,  that  I  had  fifty  years  ago."207     Thus  Wesley  stood 
firm  in  his  rejection  of  apostolic  succession. 

The  opposition  from  the  Established  Church  was  very 
severe.  John  Hampson  might  represent  a  small  minority,  who 
together  with  Wesley  rejected  the  apostolic  succession;  but  the 
majority  believed  it,  and  that  conviction  gave  impetus  to  their 
pronouncements.208  George  Home,  Bishop  of  Norwich  in  1791, 
calmly  stated  the  position  of  the  clergy  on  this  matter  when  he 
said :  "We  are  informed  the  liberties  taken  of  late  years  against 
the  ministry  of  the  Church  have  terminated  in  an  attempt  to 
begin  a  spurious  episcopacy  in  America.  ...  Mr.  Wesley,  when 
questioned  about  this  fact  in  his  lifetime,  did  not  deny  it,  but 
pleaded  necessity  to  justify  the  measure,  ...  a  fatal  precedent, 
if  it  should  be  followed.  .  .  .  and  the  order  of  all  things  in- 
verted."209 "Inasmuch  as  Wesley  was  never  elected  or  conse- 
crated to  the  episcopal  office,  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  func- 
tion as  a  bishop,  and  hence  there  would  be  a  capital  flaw  in  any 
new  church  he  might  establish.  Its  bishops  are  not  bishops, 
and  its  presbyters  are  not  presbyters."210  The  Canons  of  the 
Church  said  that  persons  should  be  ordained  only  upon  certain 
Sundays,  and  that  such  ordination  should  take  place  in  the 
presence  of  the  dean  and  two  prebendaries,  at  least.211  This 
Canon  had  been  violated.  Furthermore,  the  bishops  were  to 
examine  the  candidates  for  ordination  before  they  could  ordain 
them.212  Not  only  the  law  of  the  Church,  but  the  usages  of 
the  Church  were  felt  to  have  been  shamefully  treated;  for  this 
reason  Wesley  was  denounced.  William  Jones  said  that  Wesley 
thought  himself  a  "vicar  general"  of  heaven.213  Charles  Daub- 
ney  described  Wesley  as  "a  schismatic  grafted  upon  a  Protes- 
tant."214 And  because  Coke  carried  out  Wesley's  idea  to  the 
limit,  Whitehead  named  him  "a  felon  to  Methodism."215 

207  Jackson :  Life  of  C.  Wesley,  p.  730. 

208  Op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  192. 

209  Home's  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  570,  quoted  in  Mason,  p.  411. 

210  Hampson :  vol.  ii,  p.  197. 
211Fide  Canon  31. 

212  Fide  Canon  35. 

213  Quoted  in  Mason,  p.  411. 
215  Moore :  vol.  ii,  p.  275. 

214  Ibid.,  p.  418. 


94      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

And  these  men  were  right;  for  Wesley  did  break  the  law 
of  the  Church.  "Wesley,  dit-on,  ne  possedant  pas  la  charge 
episcopate,  ne  pouvait  pas  la  conferer.  En  droit  canonique 
strict,  cela  etait  incontestable."216  Legally,  therefore,  Wesley 
was  in  error;  but  again  let  it  be  asserted,  Wesley  was  not  con- 
cerned with  Church  legalism  so  much  as  he  was  concerned  with 
saving  men.  "Whether  one  condemns  Wesley's  action  depends 
upon  the  fact  as  to  whether  one  believes  in  episcopacy  jure 
divino  as  does  the  High  Church,  or  whether  one  rejects  this 
view  as  did  Wesley.  It  seems  as  though  the  evidence  is  against 
the  High  Church  theory."217  The  need  of  getting  a  certain 
work  done,  was  the  deciding  factor  with  Wesley;  and  not  an 
abstract  High  Church  theory. 

This  was  a  very  radical  departure,  and  cannot  be  thought 
of  as  making  for  concord  between  the  Methodists  and  the 
Churchmen.  No  presbyter  could  usurp  the  office  of  a  bishop, 
and  continue  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England;  for  the 
assuming  of  such  an  office,  in  itself,  was  an  offense  against  the 
primary  and  most  distinguishing  institution  in  the  Church,  and 
therefore  an  actual  renunciation  of  the  Church.218  Wesley  had 
struck  a  blow  at  that  part  of  the  Church  which  all  Churchmen 
held  most  dear — the  episcopacy.  In  spirit,  at  least,  this  made 
him  no  longer  a  member  of  the  Established  Church.  It  was  not 
his  words  of  loyalty,  but  his  deeds  that  counted.  Mason  said : 
"It  was  one  of  the  extraordinary  features  in  the  character  of 
that  great  man,  that  he  was  able  to  persuade  himself  that  he 
was  a  loyal  and  consistent  Churchman  throughout  his  long 
life."219  And  yet,  though  Wesley  was  quite  inconsistent  in  his 
conduct,  when  one  considers  the  high  religious  values  that  were 
at  stake,  and  the  fallacy  of  the  doctrine  of  the  apostolic  suc- 
cession, he  cannot  term  Wesley's  procedure  other  than  "an  act 
of  as  high  propriety  and  dignity  as  it  was  of  urgent  necessity."220 

Thus  have  we  reviewed  the  steps  taken  by  the  Methodists 

218  Lelievre :  Op.  clt.,  p.  426. 
17McGiffert:  Am.  Jour,  of  Theol,  1902,  p.  417 fi. 

218  Hampson  :  vol.  ii,  p.  203. 

219  Op.  cit.,  p.  406. 

220  Stevens :  vol.  ii,  p.  215. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  95 

to  carry  out  the  convictions  that  came  from  their  doctrine.  They 
were  willing  to  preach  out  of  doors ;  to  preach  indoors  in  places 
other  than  the  Established  Church;  to  travel  all  over  England, 
so  that  their  circuit  riders  knew  no  parish  bounds;  to  use  lay 
preachers;  and  later  to  ordain  these  lay  preachers.  They  re- 
sorted to  these  practices,  that  vital  religion  might  be  brought 
to  every  individual  in  England.  And  still,  they  did  not  resort 
to  a  single  practice  to  which  there  was  not  a  stiff  opposition 
from  the  clergy  and  the  Churchmen.  With  this  friction  and 
unfriendliness  constantly  upon  the  increase,  one  cannot  say  that 
unity  of  action  or  spirit  between  the  Methodists  and  the  Church- 
men was  increasing.  The  practices  of  the  Methodists  increased 
the  tension  between  the  Methodists  and  the  Established  Church. 


96      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  EARLY  METHODIST 
ORGANIZATION 

METHODISM  could  not  exist  merely  in  the  form  of  religious 
convictions  and  beliefs.  It  necessarily  assumed  a  corporate  form 
and  developed  institutions  of  its  own.  These  contributed  to 
keep  together  its  adherents  and  to  conserve  its  peculiar  doctrines. 

SECTION  I.     METHODIST  SOCIETIES 

To  gain  added  strength  in  their  activities  of  saving  men,  the 
Methodists  organized  themselves  into  religious  societies.  Reli- 
gious societies  were  nothing  new  to  England ;  for  Josiah  Wood- 
ward in  his  book  entitled  The  Account  of  the  Rise,  and  Progress 
of  Religious  Societies  in  England,  published  in  1698,  tells  of  the 
work  of  Dr.  Horneck  and  Mr.  Smithies.  These  two  men  con- 
verted several  young  men  and  united  them  into  societies  pledged 
to  lead  holy  lives.  These  societies  ministered  to  the  wants  of 
the  poor,  tried  to  get  positions  of  labor  for  others,  and  brought 
debtors  out  of  prison.  They  also  had  two  stewards  to  manage 
their  money.  Woodward  testified  of  these  societies:  "It  has 
scarce  ever  happened  that  any  person  who  could  truly  be  said  to 
be  of  these  societies  hath  fallen  from  the  public  communion  to 
any  sect  or  separation."  *  Wesley's  societies  were  doubtless 
based  upon  these  societies  which  had  existed  in  the  time  of  Wil- 
liam and  Mary,  and  like  them,  were  to  be  strictly  in  communion 
with  the  Church  of  England.2  When  the  society  at  Fetter  Lane 
was  first  founded,  it  was  the  custom  for  its  members  to  go  to  St. 
Paul's  for  communion,  headed  by  Whitefield  and  Charles  Wes- 
ley; and  when  two  members  refused  to  go  with  the  others,  they 
were  disowned  by  the  society  and  classed  as  non-members.3 

The  first  society  was  founded  in  1739,  and  it  was  called  the 

1  Quoted  in  Simon,  pp.  128-130. 

2  Jour.,  vo?.  ii,  p.  71,  note. 

3  I&d.,  vol.  i,  p.  458,  note  ii. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  97 

United  Society.4  In  1741,  the  United  Bristol  Society  was 
formed,  and  was  perhaps  the  third  so  organized.5  These  societies 
were  very  humble  affairs  in  their  beginnings :  the  society  at 
Oxford  was  started  in  June,  1741,  at  the  home  of  a  Mrs.  Mears, 
while  at  Sykehouse  the  society  began  at  the  house  of  a  farmer, 
William  Holme,  but  later  the  people  met  in  his  farmyard.6  Near 
Brussels  in  an  English  army  camp,  John  Haime,  William  Cle- 
ments, and  later  John  Evans  started  a  society,  to  which  officers 
came  to  listen  to  the  preaching  and  two  hundred  soldiers  joined 
its  membership.  When  the  camp  moved  to  Bruges,  a  small  hall 
was  hired  for  worship.7  At  Newcastle,  Charles  Wesley  organ- 
ized a  "wild,  staring,  loving,  society."  8  The  number  of  little 
societies  was  not  limited;  there  could  be  more  than  one  in  a 
place.9 

Once  begun,  however,  these  societies  rapidly  increased  both 
in  extent  and  in  membership.  By  1745  Wesley  comments  upon 
the  strength  of  the  several  societies  at  Bristol  and  Kingswood, 
for  the  movement  was  well  under  way.10  At  Keighly  ten  per- 
sons soon  increased  to  a  hundred.11  At  Colchester,  within  three 
months,  a  hundred  and  twenty  persons  were  joined  together  in 
a  society.12  In  Dublin  there  were  about  two  hundred  and  eighty 
members  who  were  very  teachable.13  While  in  London  there 
were  1,950  members  of  the  societies  in  the  year  1743,  and  over 
2,700  members  by  the  year  i^62.14  Sixty  Irish  soldiers  still 
spoke  of  God  and  were  not  ashamed,  in  the  society  at  Lim- 
erick.15 When  Wesley  visited  Saint  Ives  and  most  of  the  western 
societies,  though  many  statements  had  previously  been  made  that 
Methodism  was  on  the  decline,  he  noted  that  he  heard  nothing  of 
a  decrease,  but  much  of  an  increase.16  At  Newcastle-on-Tyne, 

4  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  iii,  p.  i66ff. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  92. 

6  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  470  and  vol.  iii,  p.  164,  note  iv. 

7  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  152. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  50. 

9  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  194. 

10  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  160. 

11  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  293. 

12  Ibid.,  vol.  iv.,  p.  289. 

13  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  314. 

14  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  79,  and  vol.  iv.  p.  489. 
™  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  477. 

16  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  170. 


98      THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

he  had  occasion  to  reject  about  fifty  from  the  society,  and  yet 
after  he  had  done  this,  there  were  about  800  left.17 

So  large  was  the  attendance  of  the  members  upon  the  meet- 
ings of  the  societies,  that  the  society  rooms  were  scarcely  ever 
commodious  enough  for  the  people.  At  Dublin  many  hundred 
attended  service  in  the  morning;  but  in  the  evening,  there  were 
far  more  hearers  than  the  room  could  hold.18  At  Hinxworth, 
Wesley  never  saw  a  house  so  full,  and  the  people  began  to  under- 
stand and  relish  what  they  heard.19  At  Stanhope,  so  many 
crowded  in,  that  the  beams  cracked,  and  the  floor  began  to  sink. 
One  man  jumped  out  of  the  window.  But  the  sermon  was 
preached  out  of  doors  to  two  or  three  times  as  many  people  as 
could  be  gathered  in  the  house.  As  late  as  1 790,  Wesley  recorded 
of  this  same  place,  "no  house  could  contain  the  congregation,  so 
I  stood  in  a  broad  place  near  the  Church."  20  Again,  Wesley 
recorded,  "I  could  not  preach  abroad  because  of  the  storms;  and 
the  house  would  not  near  contain  the  people.  However,  as  many 
crowded  in  as  could;  the  rest  got  near  the  doors  or  windows."  21 
These  large  gatherings  made  it  a  real  burden  for  Wesley  to  serve 
the  communion,  and  at  Bath  he  was  glad  when  Mr.  Shepherd 
offered  assistance;  because  the  number  of  communicants  was 
doubled.22  This  condition  of  affairs  was  continuous,  so  that  in 
his  old  age  after  making  a  regular  visit,  Wesley  said,  "the  con- 
course at  Birstall,  about  four,  was  greater  than  ever  was  seen 
there  before."23  The  people  were  evidently  very  glad  to  join 
themselves  together  in  societies  to  promote  their  practices  for 
saving  men. 

These  people  who  met  in  these  societies  had  to  be  housed. 
This  was  a  real  problem;  yet  Wesley  set  about  the  task  of  obtain- 
ing rooms  or  houses  wherein  his  societies  could  meet  regularly. 
At  York  a  new  meeting  house  was  built  in  I759-24  In  1752,  a 


17  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  67. 

18  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  p.  21. 

19  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  486. 

20  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  396,  and  vol.  viii,  p.  71. 

21  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  395. 

22  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  435. 

23  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  384. 
34  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  309. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  99 

new  house  was  provided  for  the  flourishing  society  at  Leeds; 
while  at  Sheffield  the  society  grew  so  rapidly  that  they  could  not 
wait  for  the  completion  of  the  house;  but  Wesley  was  obliged  to 
preach  in  the  shell  of  the  new  house.25  A  room  or  "tabernacle," 
built  by  a  fanatic,  Macdonald,  who  left  it  and  went  to  live  in 
Manchester,  became  the  first  meeing  house  in  Newcastle.26  But 
this  room  became  so  hot  in  the  summer,  and  even  hotter  in  the 
winter,  that  a  subscription  was  started  for  a  new  room ;  because 
the  Methodists  desired  to  worship  in  comfort.27  On  April  21, 
1771,  in  London,  a  proper  plate  suitably  engraved,  together  with 
a  corner  stone  was  fixed  in  position  with  due  ceremony  that 
strangely  contrasted  with  the  humility  of  former  years.28 

The  task  of  raising  suitable  funds  for  these  meeting  houses 
was  an  enormous  one,  because  nearly  all  of  the  Methodists  were 
poor.  Wesley  himself  was  always  in  debt  on  this  account.  He 
insisted,  however,  on  owning  the  land  upon  which  the  meeting 
house  was  built.  He  would  not  take  a  gift  or  a  loan  of  land  for 
this  purpose  and  because  of  this,  he  frankly  said  that  when  the 
first  stone  of  the  house  at  Newcastle  was  laid,  no  one  seemed  to 
know  where  the  money  was  coming  from.29  When  the  Foundry 
was  repaired  and  a  few  other  buildings  erected,  the  sum  total  of 
debt  was  £900.  This  large  debt  was  later  increased.30  The  way 
in  which  the  needed  money  was  raised,  was  by  personal  solicita- 
tion and  personal  giving.  In  two  or  three  days,  the  people  of 
Bristol  raised  £230  towards  strengthening  and  enlarging  their 
meeting  room.31  At  Cork,  Ireland,  the  people  gave  freely;  in 
one  day  ten  people  subscribed  one  hundred  pounds,  and  in  three 
or  four  days  more,  the  sum  was  doubled  and  a  piece  of  ground 
taken.32  All  of  this  money  usually  came  in  very  small  sums,  for 
when  there  was  a  gift  of  three  or  four  pounds  it  was  usually  noted. 
There  were  but  few  times  when  hundreds  of  pounds  were  con- 


25  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  17-18. 

26  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  52  and  Tyerman :  vol.  i,  p.  392. 

27  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  224. 

28  Ibid.,  vol.  yi,  p.  144. 

20  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  53-56. 

30  Ibid.,  vol.  y,  p.  101. 

31  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  331. 
**  Ibid.,  vol.  iv.,  p.  44. 


ioo    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

tributed.33  Nevertheless,  as  the  societies  aged,  they  became 
stronger;  so  that  in  1776,  in  two  meetings,  one  thousand  pounds 
were  subscribed  toward  building  a  new  Foundry.  The  Meth- 
odist societies  were  becoming  financially  prosperous.34 

At  the  beginning  of  the  movement  of  building  meeting 
houses,  the  officers  appointed  could  not  raise  sufficient  money  for 
carrying  on  the  work;  hence  Wesley  took  upon  himself  the  task 
of  paying  all  debts.  This  he  did  in  order  that  he  might  have 
full  liberty  to  preach  what  he  wished  in  these  houses.35  Wesley 
owned  all  of  his  chapels  in  his  own  name,  with  the  exception  of 
those  in  London.  In  London,  City  Road  Chapel  was  the  only 
one  he  owned — all  the  rest  he  leased.36  As  a  result  of  this,  Wes- 
ley was  constantly  in  debt  and  it  was  not  until  1783,  when  over 
£3,000  were  taken  in,  that  Wesley  found  his  income  to  exceed 
his  expenditures.  Of  this  sum,  he  reserved  thirty  pounds  for 
himself.37  Because  of  this  heavy  responsibility,  Wesley  was 
very  particular  to  see  to  it  that  all  houses  were  built  upon  the 
so-called  "Conference  Plan".  This  plan  gave  Wesley  complete 
jurisdiction  over  the  preachers  who  were  to  preach  and  the 
people  could  not  oust  them,  provided  Wesley  did  not  wish  it. 
In  1788,  the  Conference  officially  ratified  this  plan.38  One  year 
later,  conference  became  even  more  exact  and  stated  that  no 
house  should  be  begun  without  a  majority  of  the  building  com- 
mittee consenting,  "and  not  a  stone  laid  until  the  house  is  settled 
on  the  Methodist  form  verbatim.  N.  B.  No  lawyer  is  to  altar 
one  line."  The  idea  was  to  prevent  new  buildings  from  being 
erected  until  at  least  two  thirds  of  the  money  was  first  raised  for 
their  payment,  and  to  give  Conference  perfect  freedom  to  send 
what  preachers  it  would  to  the  various  houses  without  the  inter- 
ference of  people  who  did  not  happen  to  like  what  the  preachers 
said.39  The  financial  phase  of  the  Methodist  societies  was  be- 


33  Jour.,  vol.  v,  p.  407. 

34  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.   117. 
33  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  197. 

36  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  216,  note  i. 

37  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  392. 

88  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  209. 
39  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  233. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  *:^  v  :  161 

coming  an  important  factor  in  the  development  of  Methodist 
organization. 

The  purpose  of  organization  was  to  promote  Methodist  dis- 
cipline or  practices.  Wesley  met  his  societies  very  regularly  and 
was  exact  in  his  discipline.  If  they  would  not  attend  their  class, 
be  constant  at  the  Church  services  and  the  communion,  he  would 
not  have  them  in  his  society.40  All  of  the  rules  were  to  be  ob- 
served— not  a  part  only — and  if  a  woman  wore  ruffles  or  a  high 
crowned  hat,  Wesley  took  means  to  see  that  she  put  these  things 
off,  or  that  she  be  ejected  from  the  society.41  At  Norwich,  there 
were  three  rules  enforced  at  every  meeting  of  the  society. 

1.  Each  member  must  show  his  ticket. 

2.  Men  and  women  must  sit  apart. 

3.  No  spectators  in  the  gallery  during  the  communion. 
Wesley  occasionally  read  over  all  of  his  rules  to  his  individual 
societies,   stating  that  all  who  were  willing  to  abide  by  them 
could  remain  within  the  society,  and  all  who  could  not,  were 
obliged  to  leave.42     Frankness  itself  was  Wesley's  strength  in 
this  matter.     "I  met  the  society  at  seven,  and  told  them  in  plain 
terms   that   they   were  the   most   ignorant,   self -conceited,    self- 
willed,  fickle,  untractable,  disorderly,  disjointed  society  that  I 
knew  in  the  three  kingdoms."  43    This  was  real  discipline. 

Wesley  not  only  examined  the  societies  as  a  whole,  but  also 
the  individual  members.  At  Manchester  he  spent  three  days 
and  had  a  private  conversation  with  each  member.44  There  was 
much  scandal  concerning  the  moral  state  at  Kingswood.  Wesley 
investigated  the  societies  of  this  place  and  found  that  two  per- 
sons had  lapsed  into  drunkenness  in  the  last  three  months.  These 
were  promptly  expelled,  but  there  was  little  reason  for  scandal.45 
One  especial  habit  caused  Wesley  much  trouble — smuggling.  It 
was  the  general  practice  of  many  good  people;  but  Wesley 
thought  it  wrong.  Though  perhaps  in  the  minority,  Wesley  took 
an  emphatic  stand  against  this  custom.  He  told  the  people  of 

40  Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  50. 

11  Tyerman  :  vol.  iii,  p.  277. 

4"  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  68,  and  vol.  iv,  p.  304. 

43  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  351. 

"Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  15. 

*5  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  380. 


102  :  THE  •SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Cornwall  that  they  "should  never  see  his  face  again"  if  they 
kept  up  this  custom.46  At  Sunderland,  he  waged  a  hot  fight 
against  smuggling  and  put  many  out  of  the  society  for  this 
cause.  Yet  250  were  left.  But  returning  there  later  in  1759, 
he  reported  that  most  smugglers  had  left  the  society  and  honest 
people  had  filled  in  the  gap.47  At  Norwich  he  consulted  with  the 
class  leaders  and  then  asserted  that  discipline  should  be  enforced 
if  only  fifty  remained  in  the  society.48  He  examined  the  society 
at  Bristol  and  left  out  every  careless  person,  and  every  one  who 
wilfully  and  obstinately  refused  to  meet  his  brethren  weekly.49 
Wesley  felt  that  this  procedure  was  worth  while.  At  Suther- 
land, he  was  of  the  opinion  that  one  of  the  strongest  societies 
existed;  they  scrupled  even  to  buy  or  sell  milk  on  Sunday.50 
The  result  of-  such  strict  standards  was  either  to  drive  people 
unsympathetic  with  Methodism  out  of  the  societies,  or  else  to 
strengthen  their  zeal  and  increase  their  loyalty.  The  latter  usu- 
ally happened.  Whatever  else  one  may  conclude,  one  cannot 
deny  that  good  members  of  the  societies  carried  out  Meth- 
odist practices,  and  Methodist  practices  alone. 

When  Wesley  first  started  the  organization  of  his  societies 
he  ascertained  the  attitude  of  the  bishops  toward  them.  He 
found  that  very  few  opposed  them  and  that  Archbishop  Seeker 
countenanced  them.51  At  the  same  time  Wesley  had  an  inter- 
view with  Dr.  Gibson,  Bishop  of  London.  Both  Charles  Wesley 
and  John  asked  him:  "Are  religious  societies  conventicles?" 
The  bishop  answered :  "No ;  I  think  not ;  however,  you  can  read 
the  acts  and  laws  as  well  as  I ;  I  determine  nothing."  52  This  did 
not  long  remain  the  attitude  of  the  clergy;  for  soon  they  began 
to  attack  this  organizing  of  Methodists  into  societies  as  being 
unfriendly  to  the  Church.  To  the  accusation  that  these  societies 
divided  people  from  the  Church,  Wesley  responded,  "if  any 
member  of  the  Church  does  thus  divide  from,  or  leave  it,  he  hath 

46  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  76. 

"Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  220  and  325. 

<8  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  50. 

49Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  380. 

50  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  24. 

61  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  194. 

82  Moore :  vol.  i,  p.  345. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  103 

no  more  place  among  us."  53  To  the  accusation :  you  make 
schism,  Wesley  replied:  "If  you  mean  dividing  Christians  from 
Christians,  and  so  destroying  Christian  fellowship,  it  is  not.  If 
you  mean  gathering  people  out  of  buildings  called  churches,  it 
is."  54  In  spite  of  these  many  explanations  the  opposition  con- 
tinued; for  it  was  thought  that  the  Methodists  held  too  many 
meetings;  if  they  held  fewer,  the  people  could  devote  more  time 
to  earning  their  living  and  taking  care  of  their  families,  and  the 
preachers  also  would  be  less  exhausted  because  of  too  many 
meetings.55  Some  spoke  of  Wesley's  societies  as  critics  recently 
spoke  of  the  Salvation  Army.  The  establishing  of  his  societies 
was  spoken  of  as  the  "opening  of  Wesley's  Mission,"  and  doubt- 
less many  felt  the  same  antipathy  toward  them  as  many  to-day 
feel  toward  the  Salvation  Army.56  Yet  Wesley  would  not  admit 
these  charges.  A  society  was  nothing  else  than  "a  company  of 
men  having  the  form  and  seeking  the  power  of  godliness,  united 
in  order  to  pray  together,  to  receive  the  word  of  exhortation,  to 
watch  over  one  another  in  love,  that  they  may  help  each  other  to- 
work  out  their  salvation"  :  this  was  in  no  sense  schism.57  But  in 
spite  of  opposition,  the  societies  grew.  In  Dublin  there  were 
420  members  in  1752 — and  that  was  after  much  rioting  against 
the  Methodists.58 

Still  in  spite  of  his  avowals  to  the  contrary,  Wesley  did  not 
forward  unity  with  the  Established  Church.  When  he  said,  "I 
spoke  to  the  members  of  the  society,  consisting  of  Churchmen, 
Dissenters,  and  Papists,  that  were,"  one  can  well  understand  the 
feelings  of  the  High  Churchmen.59  This  kind  of  organization 
so  angered  a  clergyman  named  John  Free,  that  he  went  about 
maligning  the  Methodists  and  in  a  Speech  at  Zion  College,  1759, 
he  claimed  that  he  was  spit  upon  by  the  Methodists  for  advocat- 
ing their  suppression.  This  showed  the  high  pitch  of  feelings  at 
the  time.60 


53  Appeal  to  Men  of  Reason,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  28. 
64  Moore :  vol.  i,  p.  453. 
05  Hampson :  vol.  iii,  p.  83. 

66  Scott :  Fine  Picture  of  Meth.,  p.  20. 

67  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  190. 

68  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  38. 

69  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  177. 
80  P.  13. 


104    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Nevertheless,  Wesley  continued  to  perfect  the  organization 
of  these  societies.  He  printed  a  constitution  called  The  Nature, 
Design,  and  Rules  of  the  United  Societies.61  He  sought  to  give 
each  Methodist  a  spirit  of  unity  by  explaining  at  society  meetings 
the  contents  of  the  minutes  of  the  conferences,  letters  from  the 
Methodist  preachers  in  America,  etc.62  He  saw  that  this  organi- 
zation gave  new  converts  strength  and  unity;  and  those  not  so 
united  grew  faint  hearted.63  For  this  reason,  he  urged  all  Meth- 
odists to  join  them,  and  reproached  any  who  stayed  outside  of  a 
society  because  it  was  humble  in  its  nature.  He  insisted  upon  a 
public,  clear-cut  stand  for  the  society,  on  the  part  of  every  indi- 
vidual Methodist.  Anything  less  than  this  was  not  satisfac- 
tory.64 As  he  said  in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  "one  thing  gave  me 
great  pain;  you  are  not  in  the  society."  65  And  when  one  urged 
Wesley  to  dissolve  his  societies;  to  renounce  all  lay  assistance; 
to  leave  off  field  preaching;  and  then  intimated  that  he  would 
gain  honorable  preferment  in  the  Church ;  Wesley  answered  such 
a  temptation  by  laboring  more  industriously  for  his  societies. 
He  well  knew  that  with  well  organized  societies,  those  practices, 
such  as  field  preaching,  the  using  of  lay  preachers,  and  ordina- 
tion, which  were  the  hope  of  Methodism,  would  be  protected 
and  furthered.66 

SECTION  II.    THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  METHODIST 
CONFERENCES 

Further  development  of  organization  within  Methodism 
came  out  of  these  societies.  On  the  one  hand,  the  societies  were 
further  divided  into  classes,  bands,  etc.,  on  the  other,  they  were 
further  united  into  one  larger  group  called  the  "Conference." 
Both  types  of  these  developments  had  for  their  purpose  the 
more  effective  carrying  out  of  Methodist  practices. 

The  first  Conference  of  the  Methodists  convened  June  25, 
1744.  The  place  of  meeting  was  London,  and  the  purpose  for 

"  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  ipoff. 

62  Jour.,  vol.  v,  p.  350,  and  vol.  vi,  p.  301. 

63  Moore :  vol.  i,  p.  452. 

64  Jour.,  vol.  v,  p.  83ff. 

65Eayrs:  Letters  of  Wesley,  p.  116. 
68  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  178. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  105 

the  gathering  was  simple :  many  of  the  preachers  desired  the 
better  to  know  how  to  save  their  own  souls,  and  those  about 
them.  It  was  a  very  modest  gathering  which  lasted  for  five 
days.67  The  first  Conference  in  Ireland  took  place  in  1752 — 
eight  years  later — and  on  an  equally  humble  scale.68  Ordained 
men  and  lay  preachers  attended  the  early  Conferences ;  but  as  the 
ordained  clergy  withdrew  from  the  Methodists,  Conferences 
tended  to  be  made  up  more  and  more  of  these  lay  preachers. 
There  was  no  hard  and  fast  rule  in  the  beginning.  "Most  of 
the  preachers  in  the  kingdom  were  present"  at  the  Irish  Con- 
ference in  1769.™  The  question  was  raised  at  the  Conference 
of  1746  as  to  who  were  "the  properest  persons  to  be  present  at 
these  Conferences."  The  opinion  rendered,  was  that  the  preach- 
ers, earnest  band-leaders,  and  any  other  "pious  or  judicious 
stranger"  were  proper  attendants  upon  the  Conference.70  As 
late  as  1778,  Thomas  Taylor  in  his  diary  recorded,  "To-day  we 
permitted  all  sorts  to  come  into  the  Conference,  so  that  we  had  a 
large  company."  Thus  these  Conferences  were  most  democratic 
at  the  beginning,  and  many  besides  the  itinerant  preachers  were 
admitted.71 

The  reason  for  establishing  these  Conferences  can  best  be 
understood  from  a  member,  Henry  Moore :  "For  some  years  the 
preachers  moved  round  the  kingdom  as  Mr.  Wesley  thought 
best,  from  time  to  time,  without  any  regular  plan.  But  he  now 
found  it  necessary  to  divide  the  whole  work  into  circuits.  This 
plan  was  attended  with  many  difficulties,  and  it  seemed  at  first 
that  the  unity  of  the  body  could  not  be  preserved,  on  account  of 
the  clashing  interests  of  circuits.  But  a  remedy  was  soon  found 
for  this  threatening  evil,  viz.,  to  summon  annually  a  consider- 
able number  of  preachers,  in  order  to  consult  together  concern- 
ing the  affairs  of  the  societies.  The  preachers  thus  met  with 
him  [Wesley]  at  their  head,  he  termed,  The  Conference."  72 


67  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  143. 

68  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  41. 

69  Ibid.,  vol.  y,  p.  329. 

70  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  241,  note  i. 

71  Quoted  from  Tyerman :  vol.  iii,  p.  271. 

72  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  p.  34. 


io6    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

From  this,  it  would  appear  that  difficulties  in  administering  the 
system  of  itineracy  had  made  desirable  a  body  to  have  better 
oversight  of  Methodism  and  conduct  its  fortunes  more  effi- 
ciently. Therefore  one  can  say,  that  the  purpose  of  the  Confer- 
ences was  to  promote  a  unity  of  action  and  feeling  among  the 
Methodists.  To  this  end  the  Conference  undertook  to  supervise 
the  circuits;  it  established  them  as  definite  units  in  1767.  In 
that  same  year  the  total  membership  of  Methodism  reached  the 
number  of  25,911  persons.73  It  kept  oversight  of  the  rules  gov- 
erning the  societies ;  they  were  read  over  and  reaffirmed  yearly.74 
The  members  of  Conference  expressly  agreed  not  to  act  inde- 
pendently of  each  other,  but  to  cooperate.75  In  1773,  the  Con- 
ference drew  up  a  set  of  rules  which  were  to  establish  more 
firmly  this  unity.  These  rules  were :  a.  The  members  of  the  Con- 
ference were  to  be  entirely  consecrated  to  God ;  b.  They  were  to 
preach  the  old  Methodist  doctrine;  c.  They  were  to  enforce  the 
Methodist  discipline  as  it  was  in  the  minutes.  Forty-seven 
preachers  signed  the  minutes,  making  this  spirit  of  cooperation 
a  definite  factor.76 

Since  the  purpose  of  Conference  was  to  promote  efficiency 
and  unity  among  the  Methodists,  it  considered  that  anything 
directly  or  indirectly  pertaining  to  Methodism,  was  of  concern  to 
itself.  It  was  careful  to  see  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  were 
clearly  set  forth  and  at  the  very  first  Conference,  the  question  of 
"justification"  was  examined  and  set  forth  in  detail.77  Other 
Conferences  discussed  the  problems  in  connection  with:  three 
orders  in  the  Established  Church;  field  preaching;  those  who 
took  the  sacraments  unworthily;  the  purging  of  the  "bands"; 
the  plan  for  watch-night  services;  and  the  regulation  of  the 
itineracy.78  Conference  carefully  looked  over  the  young  men 
who  were  proposed  for  preaching  and  outlined  the  discipline  for 
itinerants.79  It  even  decided  matters  of  personal  conduct,  and  on 

73  Tyerman :  vol.  ii,  p.  608. 

74  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.   185. 

75  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  94. 

™  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  no. 

77  Minutes,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.   194. 

78  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  302,  note  i. 
78  Tyerman :  vol.  ii,  p.  305. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  107 

one  occasion  the  question  was  formally  asked  of  the  Conference, 
"Is  it  right  to  employ  hairdressers  on  Sunday?"  The  answer  of 
Conference  was,  "We  are  fully  persuaded  it  is  not" ;  and  doubt- 
less those  Methodists  who  went  for  their  Sunday  morning  shave, 
ceased,  when  Conference  spoke  against  it.80 

Not  only  in  doctrinal  matters;  but  also  in  economic  affairs 
Conference  interested  itself.  Again  and  again,  financial  ques- 
tions were  brought  before  the  Conference,  and  Conference  out- 
lined the  policies  that  were  to  be  followed.81  The  first  scheme 
for  raising  money  was  brought  before  the  Conference  of  1767 
and  involved  the  raising  of  £5000 — at  that  time  a  large  sum. 
Conference  undertook  it.82  Later  New  York  sent  over  an  appeal 
for  more  help,  and  Conference  decided  against  this  appeal.83  It 
also  kept  in  mind  the  conduct  of  financial  matters  within  each  of 
the  local  societies. 

It  insisted  that  the  books  of  each  society  be  accurately  kept, 
and  that  the  wives  and  children  of  the  many  preachers  be  pro- 
vided for.  This  was  a  heavy  task ;  but  the  Conference,  year  after 
year  attended  to  it  as  best  it  could.84 

By  keeping  thus  in  close  touch  with  the  business  of  Method- 
ism, the  Conference  was  able  to  prevent  any  movement  in  Meth- 
odism from  going  to  extremes.  One  of  the  efforts  of  Wesley  in 
connection  with  his  activities  at  Conference,  was  to  hold  this 
radicalism  in  check.  He  usually  opened  Conference  with  prayer, 
and  either  he  or  Charles  Wesley  preached.85  Wesley  himself 
did  the  major  share  of  the  preaching  at  Conference  and  in  this 
way  kept  control  of  the  situation.86  He  spent  a  fortnight  in  Lon- 
don at  the  time  of  the  Conference  of  1761,  "guarding  the  preach- 
ers and  the  people  against  running  into  extremes  on  the  one  hand 
or  the  other."  87  These  efforts  were  not  only  aimed  at  the  preach- 
ers assembled  in  Conference;  but  also  at  any  other  Methodists 


80  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  181. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  181. 

S2Jour.,  vol.  v,  p.  227,  note  iii. 

83  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  282,  note  ii. 

84  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  87. 

85  C.  Wesley :  Journal,  vol.  i,  p.  367. 

86  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  175. 

87  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  477. 


io8    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

who  might  live  near  the  place  where  Conference  met.  These 
were  often  invited  in  to  spend  a  day  in  fasting  and  prayer  with 
the  preachers.88  From  this,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  Con- 
ference was  in  a  large  measure  responsible  for  the  sanity  of  pro- 
cedure that  usually  marked  early  Methodism. 

Conference  carried  the  major  share  of  the  responsibility  for 
Methodism  and  so  claimed  a  certain  directing  power.  It  outlined 
the  duties  of  Wesley's  assistants  and  these  men  were  instructed 
to  keep  the  loyalty  of  the  people  firmly  fixed  in  the  Established 
Church.89  The  many  details  connected  with  the  itineracy  were 
reviewed  by  the  Conference.  It  claimed  the  authority  to  station 
the  preachers  where  it  would.  John  Edwards,  one  of  the  preach- 
ers, wished  a  permanent  appointment  to  Leeds,  but  this  was  re- 
fused him,  and  he  was  appointed  to  that  place  for  six  months 
only.  When  his  time  expired,  he  refused  to  give  up  his  appoint- 
ment and  for  this  cause  was  ejected  from  the  Methodists.  Con- 
ference succeeded  in  this  instance  in  supporting  its  claim  to  the 
absolute  right  to  appoint  its  preachers.90  But  this  power  did  not 
go  unchallenged.  The  trustees  of  the  chapel  at  Birstal  had  it  in 
mind  to  elect  their  own  preachers  monthly,  and  all  such  preach- 
ers were  to  preach  twice  each  Sunday  before  the  people  of  Bir- 
stal. Wesley  was  urged  to  sign  to  this.  Such  a  plan  as  this  took 
all  the  power  away  from  the  Conference  and  vested  it  in  a  body 
of  trustees.91  This  matter  of  authority  was  brought  before  the 
Conference  and  Wesley  was  instructed  by  the  Conference  to  in- 
terview the  trustees  of  Birstal  and  present  to  them  the  claim  of 
Conference,  that  the  said  Conference  alone  should  have  the  au- 
thority to  appoint  the  preachers  and  conduct  the  affairs  at  Bir- 
stal.92 Wesley  did  as  instructed.  He  requested  these  trustees 
to  settle  their  chapel  on  the  "Methodist  Plan."  Only  five  out  of 
nine  approved  of  this  plan ;  but  the  chapel  was  eventually  settled 
upon  the  Methodist  Plan  and  the  centralized  authority  was  up- 
held. A  little  later  the  authority  of  Conference  was  questioned 

88  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  196,  also  note  i. 

89  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  40. 
80  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  67. 

91  Tyerman :  vol.  iii,  p.  3730. 
82  Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  437. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  109 

by  the  trustees  and  people  of  Dewsbury;  and  not  with  a  happy 
ending.  The  trustees  of  Dewsbury  went  farther  than  those  of 
Birstal;  for  they  claimed  the  right  to  try  their  own  preachers 
and  even  expel  them  if  necessary.  They  wished  to  function  as 
accusers,  juries,  and  executives.  Conference  denied  that  the 
people  of  Dewsbury  could  try  and  expel  its  preachers,  and  at  the 
same  time  asserted  its  right  to  station  whom  it  would  at  Dews- 
bury.  When  the  people  of  the  chapel  would  not  give  in,  Confer- 
ence abandoned  the  chapel,  August  14,  1788,  and  street  preach- 
ing was  begun  again  in  Dewsbury.93  Wesley  characterized  the 
situation,  saying,  "I  have  no  right  in  any  house  in  England. 
What  I  claim  is  the  right  of  stationing  preachers.  This  the  trus- 
tees have  robbed  me  of  in  the  present  instance."  The  preachers 
and  the  people  rallied  and  a  year  later  £209  was  raised  for  a  new 
chapel  at  Dewsbury.  Here  again,  after  much  strife,  the  author- 
ity of  Conference,  as  over  against  that  of  the  trustees  of  local 
meeting  houses,  was  supreme.94 

Out  of  this  opposition  to  the  authority  of  Conference  came 
the  Deed  of  Declaration.  Hitherto,  there  had  been  objections 
to  Conference,  and  as  there  was  no  legal  "Conference,"  a  weak 
side  of  Methodism  was  exposed.  What  property  was  held  in 
trust,  was  held  either  by  the  two  Wesley s  jointly,  or  by  local 
boards  of  trustees.  This  being  the  situation,  when  the  Wesley  s 
died,  things  might  be  in  a  very  chaotic  condition.  After  the 
opposition  from  the  trustees  of  Birstal,  Wesley  determined  to 
incorporate  and  legalize  the  Conference.  He  felt  that:  "with- 
out some  authentic  deed,  fixing  the  meaning  of  the  term,  the 
moment  I  died  the  Conference  had  been  nothing.95  This  deed 
incorporated  Conference  with  a  membership  of  one  hundred 
persons.96  Such  a  corporation  could  hold  property,  and  have  the 
right  to  station  preachers,  and  also  other  guarded  privileges. 
The  deed  was  signed  by  Wesley  in  1784,  and  enrolled  in  the 
Court  of  Chancery,  making  the  Conference  legal  and  sovereign.97 


93  Tyerman :  vol.  iii,  pp.  553-554- 
'*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  560. 

85  T.  Jackson:  Life  of  Charles  Wesley,  p.  717. 

86  Vide  Deed  of  Declaration,  full  text  in  Journal,  vol.  viii,  p.  335ff. 
97  Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  481,  note  i. 


no    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

It  assured  the  unity  of  the  Methodist  movement  and  prevented 
the  possibility  of  the  itineracy's  ceasing  when  Wesley  died.98 

From  within  the  Conference  itself  came  hot  opposition. 
Many  who  had  hitherto  supported  Wesley,  objected  to  the  pass- 
ing of  this  undemocratic  legislation.  Fletcher  of  Madeley,  Wes- 
ley's loyal  supporter,  worked  hard  for  its  passage,  and  when  it 
was  adopted  several  members  of  Conference  withdrew  by  way  of 
protest.  Joseph  Pilmoor,  the  preacher  sent  formerly  to  New 
York,  John  Hampsons  junior  and  senior,  and  John  Atlay  retired 
from  the  Conference."  Not  only  within  Conference  but  outside 
also,  this  action  was  opposed.  William  Moore  left  the  church 
at  Plymouth  Dock  and  the  people  were  quite  uneasy.100  H amp- 
son  was  very  angry  over  the  discrimination  shown  in  choosing 
one  hundred  men  to  be  incorporated,  while  leaving  other  men 
equally  as  able  and  loyal  out  of  such  an  incorporation.  "As 
every  itinerant  had  always  considered  himself,  on  his  admis- 
sion to  travel,  as  a  member  of  Conference,  and  as  the  intended 
selection  of  the  one  hundred  was  industriously  concealed,  not  a 
man,  except  a  few  who  were  in  the  secret,  had  the  least  idea  of 
what  was  going  forward.  .  .  .  When  they  saw  the  deed,  it 
was  with  great  astonishment  and  indignation!"101  Because 
Wesley  succeeded  in  forcing  this  Deed  of  Declaration  upon  the 
Conference  in  spite  of  much  opposition,  many  said  that  Confer- 
ence was  of  little  use  to  Methodism  inasmuch  as  it  served  only 
the  purpose  of  declaring  and  ratifying  decisions  that  Wesley 
had  already  made.102  But  notwithstanding  its  humble  origin, 
and  the  many  attempts  to  oppose  its  will,  the  Conference  asserted 
its  will  and  became  under  Wesley's  leadership  an  institution  of 
power,  cementing  the  Methodists  together  into  a  more  compact 
body  than  before. 

Did  the  Conference  make  for  separation?  Verbally,  No, 
Conference  declared:  "What  may  we  reasonably  believe  God's 
design  in  raising  up  the  preachers  called  Methodists  ?  Answer : 


Tyerman:  vol.  iii,  p.  426. 

Jour.,  vol.  vii,  p.  5,  note  iii. 

0  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  54. 

Sampson:  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii,  pp.  160-161. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  86. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  in 

Not  to  form  any  new  sect;  but  to  reform  the  nation,  particularly 
the  Church;  and  spread  scriptural  holiness  over  the  land."103 
And  at  the  first  Conference  in  1744,  the  members  asserted  and 
reaffirmed  in  quite  a  little  detail:  that  Methodists  were  Church- 
men; they  will  not  leave  the  Church  unless  put  out;  they  have 
a  proper  definition  of  Church;  their  preaching  will  be  to  support 
the  Church.104  But  in  spite  of  all  these  expressions  jpf  loyalty 
to  the  Church,  the  Methodists  by  action,  did  just  the  opposite. 
Every  time  they  asserted  the  primary  authority  of  their  Confer- 
ence they  thereby  denied  any  real  authority  of  the  Established 
Church  over  them.  Hence  one  must  conclude  that  the  institution 
of  the  Conference  worked  for  unity  among  the  Methodists;  and 
therefore,  for  a  lack  of  unity  with  the  Church.  One  will  readily 
agree  with  Prof.  Faulkner  of  Drew,  when  he  says :  "There  were 
profound  inconsistencies  in  Wesley's  relation  to  the  Church  of 
England.  Professing  constantly  undiminished  love  for  that 
Church,  circumstances  were  always  driving  him  to  acts  utterly 
inconsistent  with  loyalty  thereto."  105 

SECTION  III.    METHODIST  CLASSES,  BANDS,  STEWARDS, 
QUARTERLY  MEETINGS 

As  the  Methodist  societies  were  united  into  a  larger  unit 
called  the  Conference  for  the  sake  of  furthering  their  practices 
and  increasing  their  efficiency;  even  so  were  they  divided  into 
smaller  groups  for  the  more  extensive  furthering  of  their  prac- 
tices and  the  greater  increase  of  their  efficiency. 

In  a  certain  sense,  Methodist  societies  were  begun  in  1739, 
but  it  was  not  until  1742  that  they  were  divided  into  "classes."  106 

The  immediate  cause  for  their  formation  was  a  financial 
one.  The  members  of  the  societies  at  Bristol  met  together  to 
find  ways  and  means  of  discharging  their  common  debt.  A  sug- 
gestion was  made  for  doing  this  under  three  heads,  a.  Every 
member  of  the  society  contribute  two  cents,  b.  the  whole  society 
be  divided  into  companies  of  twelve — these  were  to  be  called 

103  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  212. 

104  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  197-198. 


105  Faulkner :  The  Methodists,  p.  96. 

106  Tyerman  :  vol.  i,  p.  377. 


H2    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

classes,  c.  one  person  was  to  be  appointed  to  receive  a  contribu- 
tion from  the  members  of  a  class  and  give  it  to  the  stewards. 
Wesley  quickly  fell  in  with  these  suggestions,  and  the  system  of 
classes  was  inaugurated.  In  the  first  instance,  it  was  a  system  to 
get  money.107  The  more  deep  lying  cause  for  the  beginning  of 
classes  was  the  problem  of  supervising  the  large  numbers  of 
people  who  came  under  Wesley's  care.  He  could  not  attend  to 
these  individually,  so  he  organized  them  into  small  groups,  and 
placed  a  leader  over  them  who  could  inspect  their  lives  in  some 
detail.108  "That  it  may  be  more  easily  discerned  whether  the 
members  of  our  societies  are  working  out  their  own  salvation, 
they  are  divided  into  little  companies  called  classes."  109  Wesley 
summed  up  the  reasons  which  prompted  him  to  organize  these 
classes  as  follows :  "The  need  of  comradeship  to  maintain  loyalty 
to  the  cause  of  religion,  and  the  need  of  an  agency  to  pay  the 
debts  of  the  society  at  Bristol."  110 

The  division  of  the  Methodist  societies  into  classes  was 
made  without  regard  to  rank  or  distinction.111  The  entire  so- 
ciety was  divided  into  these  classes  and  every  member  of  the 
society  was  expected  to  attend  a  class.  In  1788,  there  were  over 
nine  hundred  in  the  classes  of  Bristol,  not  counting  those  who 
had  been  lost  through  moving  or  misconduct.112  All  kinds  of 
people  were  members  of  these  classes  and  Wesley  recorded:  "I 
met  a  class  of  soldiers."  Some  of  these  were  stalwart  fellows, 
thus  showing  the  popularity  of  the  classes.113 

Indeed,  these  classes  were  so  popular  with  the  Methodists 
that  one  was  able  to  restrict  attendance  upon  them  by  means  of 
admission  tickets.  These  tickets  varied  in  size  and  form  at  the 
various  periods  of  time.114  They  were  probably  first  given  out  to 
limit  admissions  about  1742.  After  the  year  1750,  texts  of 
Scripture  were  printed  upon  them  for  the  edification  of  the 

07  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  528. 

08  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  535. 

09  Ibid.,  vol.  v.,  p.  404. 

0  Moore:  Op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  454. 

1  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  304. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  361. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  485. 

4  Fide  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  v,  p.  32,  opposite,  for  good  reproduc- 
tions of  these  tickets. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  113 

holders.115  These  small  tickets  were  signed  by  John  Wesley,  or 
by  the  class  leader,  and  were  good  for  one  quarter  of  a  year. 
After  that,  they  had  to  be  renewed,  or  else  the  holder  could  not 
attend  class.  It  was  necessary  to  present  a  ticket  to  be  admitted 
to  a  session  of  the  class.116  The  Methodists  must  have  valued 
these  classes  highly,  else  they  would  not  have  consented  to  sub- 
mit to  such  restrictions  as  these. 

Each  of  these  classes  was  in  charge  of  a  man  called  the 
"leader".  At  first  the  leader  visited  from  house  to  house;  but 
this  was  dropped,  for  it  was  considered  easier  to  get  the  people 
together.117  These  men  had  no  authority  over  the  assistants  of 
Wesley,  and  they  could  not  eject  any  member  from  their  class 
without  the  consent  of  either  Wesley  or  one  of  his  assistants. 
They  could  not  displace  another  class  leader  and  they  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  temporal  affairs  of  Methodism.  The  contribu- 
tions which  they  weekly  collected  in  their  classes,  they  handed 
over  to  the  stewards.  All  other  money  was  collected  by  the  as- 
sistant, and  the  leaders  were  not  concerned  with  the  collection.118 
These  class  leaders  were  men  of  importance  and  influence.  In 
Dublin  the  class  leaders  insisted  in  a  strong  handed  manner  on 
conducting  things  their  own  way.  Wesley  finally  went  to  Dublin 
and  told  the  leaders  to  stay  in  their  places.  Men  of  less  zeal  and 
ability  would  not  have  shown  this  energy  displayed  by  the  leaders 
of  Dublin.119  Once  in  a  while,  women  were  permitted  to  be  lead- 
ers. In  the  old  book  of  Yarmouth,  begun  in  the  year  1785,  the 
name  "Sister  Mary  Sewell"  appeared  as  a  class  leader.  This 
woman  was  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Class,  and  doubtless 
acted  as  a  leader.  But  as  in  the  case  of  preaching,  the  woman 
who  led  the  class  was  no  more  the  rule  than  the  woman  who 
preached;  although  both  were  allowed.120 

Wesley  was  very  careful  to  see  that  the  leaders  enforced  the 
Methodist  discipline  in  their  classes;  and  went  to  considerable 
lengths  himself  to  see  that  it  was  done.  Class  inspection  Wesley 

116  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  v,  p.  32ff. 
118  Jour.,  vol.  vii,  p.  61. 
"Whitehead:  vol.  ii,  pp.  148-149. 

118  Jour.,  vol.  v,  p.  405. 

119  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  406. 

120  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  iii,  p.  74. 


H4    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

considered  one  of  the  important  parts  of  his  work.  At  New- 
castle, he  spent  three  days  examining  the  classes.121  He  said  with 
emphasis,  that  he  would  not  give  tickets  to  any  who  did  not  meet 
in  their  class  twelve  times  in  the  quarter  unless  they  were  kept 
home  by  sickness  or  unavoidable  business.  He  urged  his  assist- 
ants to  enforce  this  rule  and  to  remove  all  careless  class  leaders.122 
Wesley's  attitude  may  be  shown  by  his  frequent  allusions  to  this 
visitation,  such  as :  "I  began  visiting  the  classes  in  London,  and 
that  with  more  exactness  than  ever  before.  After  going  through, 
I  found  the  society  contained  about  2,350  members,  few  of 
whom  we  could  discern  to  be  triflers,  and  none  we  hope,  lived  in 
any  wilful  sin."  123  The  discipline  was  so  strict  that  many 
dropped  out  of  these  classes;  but  in  their  places  many  entered, 
so  great  was  the  prestige  of  the  class  system.124 

The  clergy  naturally  opposed  the  class,  as  they  opposed 
everything  else  that  was  tainted  with  Methodism.  Their  oppo- 
sition was  based  chiefly  upon  the  fact  that  these  classes  fostered 
enthusiasm.  '*!  forbear  to  relate  the  confusion,  the  tumult,  the 
noise,  and  uproar,  which  at  these  times  disgraced  the  order  and 
scandalized  the  exercise  of  religious  worship."  This  wras  the 
view  of  the  class-meeting  held  by  the  clergy.125  They  also 
objected  to  the  intimate  manner  used  in  discussing  the  various 
phases  of  religious  experience.  "In  short  every  case  is  canvassed 
and  the  great  physician  of  souls  is  applied  to  for  a  sovereign  balm 
for  every  wound — a  salve  for  every  sore."  126  The  attack,  how- 
ever, on  the  class  was  not  as  well  organized  or  concentrated,  as 
against  other  factors  of  Methodism. 

And  where  the  class  was  "thought  large  to  speak  their 
minds  freely,  many  meet  once  a  week  in  smaller  companies,  called 
'bands',  consisting  of  four  or  five  persons,  men  with  men,  and 
women  with  women."  12T  This  was  the  purpose  of  even  further 
sub-dividing  the  societies  into  bands :  it  was  to  furnish  a  group 


21  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  362. 

22  Letter,  quoted  in  Tyerman :  vol.  iii,  p.  215. 
"3  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  364. 

~*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  339. 

25  Nightingale :  p.  155. 

26  Ibid.,  p.  184. 

-''  Bradburn :  Meth.  Set  Forth,  p.  38. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  115 

of  people  where  one  might  indulge  in  an  intimate  and  personal 
conversation  about  his  sins.  One  of  the  rules  of  the  bands  was, 
that  each  should  speak  "freely  and  plainly  of  the  true  state  of 
our  souls."  128  Each  band  was  governed  by  a  simple  set  of  rules 
and  in  1744,  Directions  given  to  the  Band  Societies  were  pub- 
lished.129 There  were  at  least  twenty  of  these  bands  in  London 
in  1745,  and  their  average  attendance  was  five  or  six  and  never 
over  ten.  No  money  was  connected  with  these  bands.130  The 
purpose  of  having  these  bands  consist  all  of  women,  or  all  of 
men,  was  to  promote  this  perfect  freedom  of  the  members  "to 
confess  their  faults  to  one  another  and  pray  for  one  another  that 
they  may  be  healed."  131  The  purpose  in  other  words,  was  to 
intensify  that  same  type  of  work  that  was  being  done  in  the  class. 
It  was  a  form  of  intensive  specialization.  Because  of  this  Wesley 
tried  to  give  the  bands  that  close  attention  which  he  bestowed 
upon  the  classes.  "I  fix  an  hour  every  day  for  speaking  with 
each  of  the  bands,  that  no  disorderly  walker  might  remain  among 
them."  132  He  saw  to  it  that  the  Rules  of  the  Bands  were  read 
over  and  kept.133  The  Church  opposed  these  bands;  because 
such  intimate  talks  of  religious  matters  it  thought  undesirable. 
The  Methodists  were  thought  to  indulge  in  auricular  confession 
within  these  bands.134  So  they  did;  but  of  a  different  type  from 
that  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  Roman  Catholic  confessed  to 
the  priest  alone;  the  Methodist  confessed  to  several  of  his  fellow- 
laymen.  Thus  in  the  classes  and  bands  we  see  two  highly  organ- 
ized and  specialized  institutions  to  instruct  in,  and  win  loyalty 
to,  the  Methodist  practices. 

It  was  this  tendency  to  concentrate  in  organization  that 
brought  in  the  steward  to  the  Methodist  societies.  Wesley  was 
burdened  with  much  detail  about  financial  matters.  '"A  proposal 
was  made  for  devolving  all  temporal  business,  books  and  all,  en- 
tirely upon  the  stewards.  .  .  .  Oh,  when  shall  it  once  be !"  135 


•s  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  183. 

29  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  ip3ff. 

30  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  207. 

31  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  174. 
82  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  440. 
33  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  186. 
134  Nightingale :  p.  194. 
185  Jour.,  vol.  iv,  p.  52. 


n6    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

The  stewards,  for  this  reason,  were  given  complete  charge  of 
all  temporal  matters.  As  early  as  1747  directions  were  given 
them  in  writing,  for  the  governing  of  the  London  Society.  If 
the  stewards  disobeyed  these  rules  after  three  times,  they  would 
be  put  out  of  their  stewardship.136  Wesley  laid  down  eleven  rules 
governing  the  stewards  of  the  Foundry  at  London.  Each 
steward  was  to  be  present  at  the  Foundry  every  Tuesday  and 
Thursday  morning  to  transact  the  temporal  affairs  of  the  society. 
The  meetings  were  to  be  regular  and  orderly,  and  they  were  to 
consider  the  needs  of  the  poor.  They  were  always  to  treat  the 
poor  kindly ;  even  though  they  were  unable  to  grant  them  assist- 
ance.137 Whosoever  broke  this  rule  ceased  to  be  a  steward.  It 
was  the  duty  of  the  stewards  to  keep  an  exact  account  of  all 
expenses  and  expenditures,  and  their  records  show  how  faithful 
they  were,  even  with  the  numerous  small  items  which  they  dealt 
with.138  They  also  had  charge  of  an  account  from  which  they 
were  to  loan  money  to  the  needy.  This  was  done  on  a  somewhat 
extensive  scale.139 

Besides  meeting  the  stewards  in  their  work  in  connection 
with  the  local  societies,  Wesley  also  used  to  meet  them  in  a  body 
four  times  a  year  at  \vhat  was  called  the  "quarterly  meeting." 
This  quarterly  meeting  enabled  Wesley  to  come  into  contact  with 
many  stewards  especially  those  from  the  country.  "Stewards 
from  the  country  were  present,"  he  wrote.140  And  in  another 
instance  he  noted,  "Stewards  met  from  the  societies  in  the 
country."  141  And  again  we  read,  "We  had  a  quarterly  meeting, 
at  which  were  present  all  the  stewards  from  our  Cornish  soci- 
eties." 142  From  this  it  would  appear  that  Wesley  laid  great 
stress  upon  the  fact  that  stewards  from  the  country  places  came 
out.  This  gave  him  an  increased  opportunity  for  strengthening 
Methodism  in  those  remote  places. 

The  leaders  also  came  to  this  quarterly  meeting  and  each 

30  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  486ff. 
3T  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  30off. 

38  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  iii,  p.  QQff. 

39  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  197. 

40/owr.,  vol.  iv,  p.  394,  and  note  i. 
41  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  467. 
*- Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  491. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  117 

one  brought  with  him  his  class  paper  showing  what  money  he  had 
actually  received  and  turned  over  to  the  stewards.  Bills  were 
presented  for  payment.  Preaching  and  worship  took  place.143 
But  the  quarterly  meeting  was  held  primarily  to  attend  to  the 
financial  needs  of  the  work.144  It  could  not  have  been  welcome 
to  the  stewards,  for  Wesley  said  of  one  such  meeting:  "This  is 
frequently  a  dull  and  heavy  meeting;  but  it  was  so  lively  a  one 
to-day  that  we  hardly  knew  how  to  part."  145  Not  only  the 
leaders  but  also  the  stewards  rendered  accounts  at  the  quarterly 
meeting.  These  accounts  were  to  show  the  progress  or  retro- 
gression the  societies  had  made.146 

As  the  quarterly  meeting  tended  to  become  a  permanent 
institution  within  Methodism,  it  concerned  itself  with  the  work 
of  one,  and  more  and  more,  of  but  one  circuit.147  So  it  is  that 
we  read  that  the  circuit  of  Yarm  showed  an  increase  of  the  poor; 
but  the  rich  did  not  seem  to  care  about  religion.148  Because  the 
poor  entered  the  societies  and  the  rich  remained  without,  it  was 
always  with  difficulty  that  the  quarterly  meeting  handled  the 
item  of  money.  A  quarterly  meeting  of  London  reported  that 
the  income  of  its  circuit  was  still  less  than  expenses.149  As  late 
as  February  29,  1790,  Wesley  recorded:  "We  had  our  general 
quarterly  meeting,  whereby  it  appears  that  the  society  received 
and  expended  about  £3,000  a  year;  but  our  expense  still  exceeded 
our  income."  15°  Thus  the  quarterly  meeting  served  to  unite  the 
stewards  together  in  a  greater  sympathy  for  their  common  task, 
and  to  "diligently  inquire  both  into  the  temporal  and  the  spirit- 
ual state  of  each  society."  151 

SECTION  IV.  THE  METHODIST  PRESS 

Far  more  powerful  in  developing  Methodist  ideas  and  spirit, 
than  any  of  the  before-mentioned  institutions,  was  the  Methodist 

143  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  vii,  p.  8off. 
"Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  305. 

45  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  38. 

46  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  147. 
"Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  148. 

48  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  174. 

49  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  522. 

50  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  p.  40. 

151  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  vii,  p.  80. 


n8    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

press.  Wesley  himself  was  a  great  lover  and  reader  of  books.152 
While  travelling,  he  read  the  classics  and  the  standard  works  of 
his  day.  His  Journals  tell  of  his  opinion  of  what  he  read  :  Black- 
well's  Sacred  Classics  Illustrated  and  Defended  he  liked;  a  long 
book  review  was  the  result  of  his  reading  Dr.  Parson's  Remains 
of  Japheth.153  While  he  was  going  through  Scotland,  in  one 
week  he  read  The  History  of  Scotland  by  Stuart.154  He  thought 
that  Dr.  Hunter's  Lectures  were  too  florid  to  be  real  good.155 
And  as  for  a  Description  of  China  and  Chinese  Tartary  he 
said,  "Du  Halde's  word  I  will  not  take  for  a  straw",  for  Du 
Halde  was  a  Jesuit.156  When  Wesley  considered  reading  to  be 
so  important  for  himself,  it  was  most  natural  that  he  should 
esteem  books  and  reading  matter  equally  vital  for  his  followers. 
In  fact,  this  was  his  attitude,  and  he  worked  most  diligently  to 
meet  the  need. 

While  he  was  travelling  from  place  to  place,  it  was  his 
custom  to  read  many  things  for  his  Christian  Library.157  This 
library  contained  233  volumes  which  Wesley  felt  his  followers 
ought  to  read,  not  of  original  works,  or  even  works  that  were 
rewritten;  but  rather,  it  was  a  plan  of  correcting  the  works  of 
others,  and  publishing  them.  Wesley  crossed  out  what  he  did 
not  like  in  a  given  book,  and  this  book  was  then  printed  with 
these  omissions  which  Wesley  had  indicated.158  This  library 
was  begun  in  1749.  Wesley  also  had  good  writers  among  his 
followers  to  support  him  in  teaching  his  people  the  spirit  and 
principles  of  Methodism,  and  in  defending  it  before  the  world. 
John  Fletcher,  Joseph  Benson,  and  Adam  Clarke  —  no  mean 
writers  —  contributed  to  the  support  of  the  Methodist  press.159 

The  hymnals  of  early  Methodism  were  an  important  pro- 
duct of  the  Methodist  press.  The  Hymns  for  the  Nativity  of 
our  Lord,  wherein  such  hymns  as,  "Come  thou  long  expected 


152  Jour.,  vol.  vii,  p.  258. 

153  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  333. 

154  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  139. 

155  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  232. 
158  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  241. 
157  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  325. 

58  Tyerman  :  vol.  ii,  p.  6sff. 
189  Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  94. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  119 

Saviour"  appeared.160  In  1756  a  hymnal  of  twenty-four  pages 
was  published.  To  be  sure,  none  of  the  great  hymns  of  the 
Church  appear  in  this  early  work;  but  when  one  remembers  the 
fantastic  hymns  which  the  Moravians  were  producing  at  that 
time,  this  hymnal  stands  well  by  comparison.  Between  the  years 
1737  and  1767,  John  and  Charles  Wesley  published  not  less  than 
twenty-one  different  hymnals  between  them.  Their  first  volume 
contained  nine  hymns;  but  their  hymnal  of  1789  contained  525 
hymns.161 

Liturgy  was  not  forgotten.  Wesley  loved  it  and  ever 
sought  to  have  his  services  dignified  through  its  use.  "I  believe 
there  is  no  liturgy  in  the  world,  either  in  ancient  or  modern  lan- 
guage, which  breathes  more  of  a  solid,  scriptural,  rational  piety, 
than  the  Common  Prayer  of  the  Church  of  England."  162  But 
in  spite  of  this  opinion,  Wesley  proceeded  to  publish  a  liturgy 
for  his  followers  both  in  America  and  England,  which  differed 
from  the  Established  Church  and  shortened  most  of  its  serv- 
ices.163 This  Book  of  Prayer  contained:  prayers  for  each  day  in 
the  week,  morning  and  evening ;  questions  for  personal  interroga- 
tion; a  collection  of  prayers  for  families,  for  morning  and  even- 
ing ;  prayers  for  children,  which  were  quite  theological  and  long ; 
prayers  for  relatives;  and  grace  to  offer  before  and  after  meals. 
It  was  quite  complete,  and  the  Methodist  who  used  it  freely, 
would  not  be  likely  to  resort  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.164 

The  products  of  the  press  aided  in  the  fixation  of  doctrine 
as  well  as  the  devotion  in  worship.  Wesley  published  among 
other  things  his  Notes  on  the  New  Testament.  The  ideas  con- 
tained in  these  notes  were  not  unique  to  Wesley.  He  laid  no 
claim  to  originality,  but  frankly  said  that  he  borrowed  from 
such  celebrated  men  as:  John  Albert  Bengel,  professor  in  the 
theological  seminary  at  Denkendorf,  and  a  well  known  editor  of 
a  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testament;  Dr.  John  Heylin,  a  well 
known  mystic  who  became  prebendary  of  Westminster  and  a 


160  Vide,  p.  14- 

161 W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  i,  pp.  118-119. 

162  Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists,  p.  2. 

163  T.  Jackson :  Life  of  C.  Wesley,  p.  719. 

164  Collection  of  Form  of  Prayer,  passim. 


120    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

chaplain  in  ordinary  to  George  III;  Dr.  John  Guyse,  an  inde- 
pendent minister  then  known  for  his  vigorous  attacks  upon 
Arianism;  and  Dr.  Philip  Doddridge,  a  nonconformist  divine 
who  wrote  much  in  prose  and  many  good  hymns — these  were 
some  of  the  helpers  of  Wesley.  In  these  notes,  the  cardinal  be- 
liefs of  Methodism  were  put  forth;  and  because  of  this,  they  be- 
came the  standard  creed  of  the  Methodist  meeting  houses.  In 
this  way,  one  result  of  the  press  was  to  voice  and  also  to  solidify 
Methodist  belief  into  a  rigid  mould.  Each  preacher  was  obliged 
to  promise  loyalty  to  the  doctrines  expressed  in  Wesley's  Notes 
ere  he  could  be  permitted  to  preach.165 

The  great  attempt  to  acquaint  the  people  of  England  with 
the  tenets  of  Methodism  was  the  publishing  of  the  Arminian 
Magazine.  Wesley  issued  a  prospectus  for  this  undertaking, 
November  24,  1777.  The  magazine  itself  was  to  appear  Jan- 
uary i,  1778.  The  purpose  of  it  was  to  foster  Methodism.166 
It  would  contain  "no  views,  no  politics,  no  personal  invectives'* 
but  would  be  devoted  to  the  uses  of  theology  and  vital  religion.16" 
Wesley  superintended  the  editing  and  circulating  of  it.  He 
instructed  Joseph  Taylor,  the  printer,  to  send  copies  of  this 
magazine  by  sea  to  Bristol  or  London  and  if  any  copies  were 
damaged  en  route,  they  could  be  sold  for  half  price.168  Concern- 
ing his  toils  as  editor  he  said,  "I  looked  over  all  the  manuscripts 
which  I  had  collected  for  the  Magazine,  destroyed  what  I  did  not 
think  worth  publishing,  and  corrected  the  rest."  169  One  of  the 
trials  of  Wesley's  life  was  to  keep  this  magazine  free  from  errors. 
"This  week  I  endeavored  to  point  out  all  the  errata  in  the  eight 
volumes  of  the  Arminian  Magazine.  This  must  be  done  by  me; 
otherwise  several  pages  therein  will  be  unintelligible."  17°  And 
when  Wesley  could  stand  the  tribulation  of  a  poor  printer 
no  longer,  Thomas  Olivers  was  dropped;  because  he  made  too 
many  errors  in  his  work,  and  because  he  inserted  many  pieces 


85  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  ix,  p.  97. 

188  Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  168,  note  ii. 
"Tyerman:  vol.  iii,  p.  281  ff. 

108Eayrs :  p.  210. 

189  Jour.,  vol.  vii,  p.  337. 
170  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  133. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  121 

into  the  magazine  without  Wesley's  consent.171  Wesley  clearly 
saw  the  value  of  the  Arminian  Magazine. 

The  organization  of  the  press  was  further  completed  by  the 
appointing  of  certain  men  to  act  as  "book  stewards".  As  early 
as  1753,  T.  Butts  and  W.  Briggs,  both  Methodist  preachers, 
were  appointed  in  this  capacity.  They  strove  to  be  business  like ; 
they  demanded  that  an  exact  account  be  kept  with  each  church; 
they  required  that  payments  for  all  stock  be  made  at  least  every 
quarter;  and  they  objected  strenuously  to  the  habit  of  the  local 
stewards  of  taking  money  belonging  to  the  book  stewards  and 
using  it  for  other  purposes.  These  men  had  the  powers  of  an 
attorney  to  collect  money  for  the  books  they  had  sold.172  Un- 
fortunately, all  of  the  book  stewards  did  not  have  equal  ability  or 
inclination.  John  Atlay,  a  book  steward  for  fifteen  years,  made 
a  report,  September  20,  1788,  and  told  Wesley  that  the  value  of 
the  stock  in  the  book  room  was  £13,751,  and  not  less.  But 
Wesley  complained  after  that  it  was  less.173  Indeed,  he  found 
that  Atlay  had  overvalued  his  stock  to  the  extent  of  £9,000 
and  that  he  was  in  a  bad  financial  position.  Selling  books, 
hitherto,  had  not  been  very  profitable  from  a  financial  point 
of  view.174 

After  his  trouble  with  John  Atlay,  Wesley  appointed  a  com- 
mittee to  audit  his  accounts  and  business  at  the  book  room.  He 
wished  it  to  be  better  managed  in  the  future.  Wesley  died,  and 
George  Whitefield  in  behalf  of  the  Conference  took  charge  of 
the  book  room  until  1804.  At  that  time,  a  committee  of  fifteen 
members  of  Conference  were  responsible  for  Methodist  publica- 
tions; but  it  could  not  serve  in  this  capacity  for  more  than  six 
successive  years.175  Conference  also  took  the  pains  to  aid  the 
book  business  by  ruling  in  1782,  for  a  second  time,  that  preachers 
should  not  publish  anything  without  the  consent  of  John  Wesley, 
or  at  least  his  corrections,  and  that  all  funds  coming  from  such 
publications  should  go  into  the  common  fund.  This  was  done  to 


171  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  525*!. 
172Tyerman:  vol.  ii,  p.  i;6ff. 

173  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  i,  p.  poff, 

174  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  332. 

175  Warren :  vol.  i,  pp.  378-379. 


122    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

prevent  manuscripts  with  ideas  distintegrating  to  the  spirit  of 
Methodism,  and  injurious  to  Methodism  before  the  public,  from 
being  printed.176  Later  at  the  Conference  of  1796,  this  was 
changed.  To  stop  outside  publishing,  the  author  was  to  receive 
100  copies  of  every  1,000  of  his  production  that  was  sold;  and  if 
his  articles  were  published  in  the  Arminian  Magazine,  he  was  to 
be  paid.177  At 'last  the  press  was  upon  a  workable  basis,  and 
when  such  men  as  Adam  Clarke,  Samuel  Bradburn,  and  Henry 
Moore,  all  well  known  Methodist  historians,  labored  in  its  behalf, 
its  success  was  quite  assured.178 

Wesley  did  all  that  he  could  to  establish  the  press  as  an 
institution  of  Methodism,  and  to  spread  its  publications  abroad. 
He  urged  all  of  his  people  to  adopt  the  habit  of  reading.  "The 
societies  are  not  half  supplied  with  books;  not  even  with  Jane 
Cooper's  Letters,  or  the  two  or  three  sermons  which  I  printed 
last  year."  179  Wesley  firmly  believed  that  loyal  Methodists 
should  buy  Methodist  publications. 

In  this  way  was  the  Methodist  press  developed.  Of  its  value, 
Jackson,  who  wrote  Methodist  works  after  Wesley's  death,  said : 
"One  of  the  most  important  and  successful  means  adopted  by  the 
two  Wesleys  for  promoting  the  interests  of  religion,  was  the 
publication,  in  a  cheap  and  popular  form,  of  a  large  number  of 
interesting  and  instructive  books."  18°  The  Methodist  press 
aided  immeasurably  in  binding  the  Methodists  more  firmly  to- 
gether in  harmony  of  spirit.  It  freed  them  from  dependence 
upon  unsympathetic  or  unfriendly  publications  for  their  read- 
ing. It  educated  them  to  a  greater  loyalty  to  all  Methodist  insti- 
tutions including  itself.  It  worked  with  other  organizations  in 
promoting  the  doctrines  and  beliefs,  the  spirit  and  practices,  of 
the  Methodists.  Around  it  centered  a  feeling  of  unity  for  Meth- 
odist principles.  So  long  as  the  Methodists  had  this  vigorous 
press,  just  so  long  was  the  opportunity  for  further  unity  with 
the  Established  Church  impossible;  for  the  Methodist  press,  as 

176  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  153. 

177  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  345- 
™Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  276. 

179  Letters,  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  7. 

180  Centenary  of  Wesleyan  Methodism,  p.  84. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  123 

an  organization  to  further  Methodism,  constantly  advocated 
Methodist  unity  and  independence.  To  it  in  a  large  part,  Meth- 
odism owed  its  very  life. 

SECTION  V.    SUMMARY 

We  have  seen  the  extent  to  which  the  Methodists  went 
in  their  organization.  They  grouped  themselves  into  societies 
that  they  might  find  the  necessary  sympathy  to  fortify  one  an- 
other to  do  what  Methodists  ought.  Then  the  preachers  of  these 
societies  met  in  their  Conferences  at  least  once  a  year  to  deter- 
mine the  general  policies,  and  to  fortify  each  other  to  preach 
what  Methodists  ought  to  preach.  And  after  the  societies  were 
established,  they  were  further  divided  into  classes,  that  individ- 
ual training  in  the  practices  and  purposes  of  Methodism  might 
take  place.  Later  these  classes  were  further  subdivided  in  order 
to  more  intensively  and  individually  carry  on  the  work  which  the 
classes  had  undertaken  to  do.  That  financial  support  might  not 
be  neglected,  certain  ones  were  delegated  as  stewards  to  attend 
to  this  matter,  and  to  nothing  else.  Stewards  were  required  to 
attend  the  quarterly  meetings  for  their  edification  and  to  gain 
wisdom  and  zeal  in  the  conduct  of  financial  matters. 

Furthermore,  all  of  this  efficient  detailed  activity  was  kept 
under  the  direct  supervision  and  control  of  Wesley  and  his  assist- 
ants and  preachers  as  they  met  in  the  Annual  Conference.  The 
Conference  looked  into  the  least  detail.  All  things  were  done  by 
rule,  and  in  a  legal,  orderly  fashion.  This  gave  to  it  added 
strength  as  a  centralizing  power.  It  prevented  the  energies 
of  Methodists  from  becoming  scattered  and  consequently  inef- 
fective. 

All  of  this  was  done  to  advance  Methodist  doctrines  and 
Methodist  practices.  It  was  an  evolution  of  an  organization 
arising  from  a  deep  seated  desire  to  save  England.  No  one  part 
of  this  organization  was  consciously  planned  a  long  time  in  ad- 
vance, but  grew  out  of  the  needs  of  the  day.  The  important  fact 
is :  that  after  the  Methodists  had  adopted  every  plan  and 
method  to  spread  their  doctrines  and  their  practices,  they  found 
themselves  in  possession  of  a  strong,  developed,  and  useful  or- 


I24    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

ganization,  which  good  sense  would  not  allow  them  to  discard 
lightly,  and  to  keep  which,  added  to  their  sense  of  unity,  while 
it  took  away  their  feeling  of  need  and  dependence  upon  the 
Established  Church. 

Whatever  might  have  been  the  avowals  and  desires  of  the 
Methodists,  that  their  various  organizations  should  force  and 
teach  loyalty  to  the  Church,  the  very  existence  of  these  organiza- 
tions worked  in  quite  the  opposite  direction.  The  Methodists 
could  not  have  an  organization  of  their  own,  and  have  unity  with 
the  Established  Church  furthered  at  one  and  the  same  time. 
This  was  sociologically  impossible. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  125 


CHAPTER  VI 
DEVELOPMENT  OF  METHODIST  SOLIDARITY 


SECTION  I.    WESLEY'S  OPPOSITION   TO  THE  UNIFICATION  OF 

METHODISM 

MENTAL  and  practical  differences  such  as  peculiarities  or 
standards  of  conduct  are  socializing  forces,  and  to  this  the  Meth- 
odists were  no  exception.  There  were  practical  differences  be- 
tween Churchmen  and  Methodists  from  the  very  beginning  of 
the  movement.  As  we  have  seen,  the  Methodists  differed  from 
the  Church  in  the  emphasis  they  placed  upon  doctrines  such  as 
the  New  Birth,  and  Christian  Perfection.  Then  too,  their  preach- 
ing in  the  fields;  their  establishment  of  the  itineracy;  their  use  of 
lay  preachers;  their  ordinations:  all  of  these  practices  were  con- 
sidered by  the  Churchmen  unnecessary  and  unjustifiable  inno- 
vations. And  finally,  the  various  phases  of  Methodist  organiza- 
tion such  as  the  Conferences,  classes,  and  quarterly  meetings  con- 
stituted a  real  difference. 

The  continuance  of  these  practical  differences  had  its  effect 
upon  the  social  grouping  of  the  Methodists,  for  endlessly  varied 
modes  of  love  and  hate  tend  ever  to  reconstruct  and  dominate 
social  grouping.1  The  Methodists  were  fully  aware  of  how  much 


Giddings :  Readings  in  Descriptive  and  Historical  Sociology,  p.  275. 


126     THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

they  and  the  group  to  which  they  belonged  differed  from  the 
Church,  and  this  consciousness  came  to  its  own  in  their  many 
pronounced  expressions  of  opinion  concerning  the  life  about 
them,  for  nearly  all  Methodists  were  dissatisfied  with  the  state 
of  the  Church  and  vital  religion.2  And  the  very  opposition  they 
received,  stiffened  their  convictions  so  that  this  consciousness, 
which  was  at  first  somewhat  vague,  developed  into  a  more  or 
less  definite  emotion  of  mutual  sympathy. 

This  type  of  sympathy  among  them  was  nothing  abstract  or 
unreal.  "It  is  a  power  as  real  as  that  consciousness  of  disciplined 
strength  which  fights  victorious  battles,  or  as  that  consciousness 
of  weakness  and  demoralization  which  hastens  inglorious  re- 
treat." 3  It  made  the  Methodists  wish  to  organize  more  intens- 
ively to  attain  their  common  ends  and  to  promote  those  beliefs 
and  acivities  which  they  felt  England  badly  needed.  No  uni- 
formity either  of  time  or  place  characterized  the  steps  they  took; 
but  before  Wesley's  death  a  vague  consciousness  had  clarified 
itself  into  a  distinct  desire  for  greater  combination  to  achieve 
Methodist  purposes. 

Yet  Wesley,  who  in  other  respects  was  such  a  keen  observer 
of  the  life  about  him,  seemed  not  to  understand  the  direction 
which  the  Methodist  movement  was  surely  taking ;  neither  did  he 
seem  acquainted  with  this  desire  for  greater  unity  and  independ- 
ence among  the  Methodists  that  so  clearly  marked  the  conduct  of 
his  followers.  That  the  Methodists  were  becoming  a  distinct 
social  entity,  he  repeatedly  professed  not  to  believe.  Nor  did  he 
in  the  least  desire  the  Methodists  to  be  formed  into  a  body 
separate  from  the  Church,  and  his  personal  actions  neither 
sanctioned  nor  countenanced  the  taking  of  any  steps  connected 
with  his  organization  that  would  result  in  separation.  He  was 
frankly  opposed  to  leaving  the  Church. 

Wesley  professed  great  loyalty  to  the  Church  of  England. 
"I  live  and  die  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England."  4  This 


2  Vide,  chap.   i. 

3  Giddings  :  Op.  cit.,  p.  326. 

4  Lecky :  Hist,  of  Eng.  in  i8th  Century,  vol.  ii,  p.  688. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  127 

loyalty  did  not  hinder  him  from  advocating  for  his  followers 
a  higher  type  of  piety  than  was  commonly  practiced  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Church.10  In  a  phrase  that  must  have  been  irritating 
to  the  clergy  he  said :  "It  is  very  possible  to  be  united  to  Christ 
and  to  the  Church  of  England  at  the  same  time.  ...  we  do  not 
need  to  separate  from  the  Church  in  order  to  preserve  allegiance 
to  Christ;  but  may  be  firm  members  thereof,  and  yet  'have  a 
conscience  void  of  offense  toward  God  and  man.'  "u 

To  be  sure,  he  did  write  to  his  brother  saying,  "I  do  not 
at  all  think  (to  tell  you  the  truth)  that  the  work  will  ever  be 
destroyed,  Church  or  no  Church."12  Yet  this  attitude  is  out- 
done when  it  is  remembered  that  he  was  quite  particular  to  bury 
his  mother  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England.13 
In  1758,  a  tract  entitled,  Reasons  Against  a  Separation  from  the 
Church  of  England  was  published.  Here,  Wesley  gave  twelve 
reasons  why  the  Methodists  should  remain  within  the  Church. 
So  heartily  was  Charles  Wesley — the  High  Churchman — in 
accord  with  this  statement  that  he  seconded  it  with  his  signa- 
ture.14 

Wesley  showed  that  he  assumed  the  Methodists  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  when  in  an  address  to  the  king  on  March  5, 
1744,  he  asserted:  "that  we  are  a  part  (however  mean)  of  that 
Protestant  Church  established  in  these  kingdoms."15  He  also 
approved  Middleton's  Essay  on  Church  Government;  because 
it  neither  exalted  nor  depressed  the  regal  power;  but  kept  the 
middle  way.16  All  of  this  sounded  much  like  good  churchman- 
ship,  and  when  as  late  as  1782  he  was  asked,  "Is  it  your  wish 
that  the  people  called  Methodists  should  be,  or  become,  a  body 
separate  from  the  Church  ?" — he  answered  as  upon  former  occa- 
sions, "No."17  Mr.  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  authority  on  Irish  affairs 
and  the  writer  of  those  famous  volumes,  England  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  was  correct  when  he  said,  "Nothing  can 

10  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  86. 

11  Letter  to  Mr.  Toogood,  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  234. 

12  Tyerman  :  vol.  ii,  p.  416. 

13  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  30,  note  ii. 

14  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  2g$fi. 

15  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.   123. 

16  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  42. 
"Moore:  vol.  ii,  p.  238. 


128    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

be  more  unjust  than  to  attribute  to  him  the  ambition  of  a 
schismatic,  or  the  subversive  instincts  of  a  revolutionist."18 

Since  Wesley,  as  leader,  felt  thus  loyal  to  the  Church,  one 
is  not  surprised  to  find  that  he  and  others  worked  for  the  unity 
of  the  Methodists  with  it.  Between  Wesley  and  Mr.  Walker, 
of  Truro,  there  was  much  correspondence  on  this  head.  Walker 
said  that  Wesley  intended  to  be  a  schismatic;  but  Wesley  an- 
swered Walker  to  the  contrary  by  saying,  "Tell  me  what,  and 
I  will  do  it  without  delay,  however  contrary  it  may  be  to  my 
ease  or  natural  inclination."19  Here  Wesley  said  he  would  do 
anything  save  give  up  his  flock  in  order  that  he  might  not  be 
schismatic.  At  another  time  he  wrote  to  Walker  saying  that 
the  clergy  were  all  too  worldly  and  inefficient  to  meet  the  needs 
of  the  day ;  and  that  while  such  a  condition  lasted,  the  Methodists 
could  not  more  heartily  unite  with  the  Church.20  Mr.  Walker 
also  came  forth  with  the  suggestion  that  Methodist  lay  preachers 
be  ordained  in  the  Church;  not  as  preachers,  but  as  inspectors 
and  readers.  These  he  would  have  stationed  in  certain  societies. 
Wesley  objected  that  the  lay  preachers  had  not  enough  talent 
to  remain  in  one  place  for  a  long  period  of  time — fixed  lay 
preachers  became  dead  and  inefficient.21  Walker  continued  this 
matter  and  urged  Wesley  to  do  away  with  his  lay  preachers, 
saying  that  there  could  be  no  unity  while  lay  preachers  were  used 
by  the  Methodists.  To  this  persuasion  Wesley  replied,  "I  am 
still  desirous  of  knowing  in  what  particular  manner  you  think 
the  present  work  of  God  could  be  carried  on  without  assistance 
of  lay  preachers/'22  He  would  not  give  up  his  lay  preachers 
to  gain  unity. 

Wesley  also  wrote  a  circular  letter  to  the  clergy,  asking 
them  to  meet  with  him  that  they  might  discuss  the  basis  upon 
which  unity  might  take  place.  No  attention  was  paid  to  this 
suggestion.23  The  clergy  knew  Wesley's  proneness  to  ask  advice 
and  not  take  it  too  well. 


Lecky:  Op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  687. 
'  Moore :  vol.  ii,  p.  166. 
Ibid.,  pp.  172-174. 
Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  276ff. 
Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  281. 
Moore:  vol.  ii,  pp.  167-169. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  129 

Some  effort,  however,  was  made  on  the  part  of  the  clergy 
to  gain  unity  with  the  Methodists.  One  Churchman  said  that 
the  Methodists  had  scant  appreciation  for  the  "necessity  and 
indispensable  duty  of  Church  unity."  This  lack  of  appreciation 
was  the  cause  of  dissent.24  Such  scolding  did  not  appeal  to  the 
Methodists.  Zachary  Grey  urged  Methodist  laymen  to  stay 
within  the  Church,  and  pointed  out  the  advantage  of  having  a 
fixed  liturgy  about  which  the  Methodists  could  rally  their  loyalty. 
But  then,  as  now,  there  was  no  compromise.  If  the  Methodists 
would  enter  the  Established  Church,  they  must  adjust  them- 
selves to  it.  It  would  not  adjust  itself  to  them.25 

The  Mehodist  writers,  David  Simpson  and  Samuel  Brad- 
burn,  discussed  this  question  of  unity  quite  adequately.  Simpson 
said  that  Methodist  ministers  should  be  held  as  helpers,  coadju- 
tors, and  not  as  enemies  of  the  Church.  There  could  be  no 
thought  of  unity  until  this  was  done.26  Bradburn  was  more 
thoroughgoing;  he  advocated:  that  traveling  preachers  of  long 
standing  should  be  ordained  in  the  Established 'Church;  that  no 
preachers  be  ordained  by  the  bishops  unless  recommended  by 
Conference;  that  the  ordained  Methodist  preachers  be  permitted 
to  bury,  baptize,  and  administer  the  Lord's  Supper,  provided 
they  receive  no  pay  therefor;  that  the  Church  service  only  be 
used  in  meeting  houses  in  Church  hours;  that  the  plan  of 
itineracy,  circuits,  districts,  Conferences,  remain  untouched;  that 
the  bishops  of  the  Established  Church  be  present  at  the  Confer- 
ence when  the  preachers  and  probationers  have  their  characters 
examined,  and  that  these  bishops  have  the  authority  to  bring 
charges  against  Methodist  preachers.  Bradburn  would  also  have 
Methodist  meeting  houses  registered  and  have  them  pay  a  yearly 
sum  to  the  bishops.  "Such  are  the  rough  outlines  of  a  scheme, 
that  if  adopted,  might  bring  half  a  million  people  into  the 
strictest  union  with  the  Church.  And  if  something  of  this  kind 
be  not  done,  will  not  those  be  to  blame  who  oppose  it — I  am  not 
one  of  these."27  Thus  earnest  attempts  were  for  Church  unity. 

24  The  Question,  p.  4. 

28  Grey:  Serious  Address  to  Lay  Methodists,  p.  4fL 
26  Happiness  of  Dying  in  the  Lord,  passim. 
"Bradburn:  The  Question,  pp.  20-21. 


130    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

SECTION    II.      BISHOPS   OF   THE   ESTABLISHED   CHURCH   AND 

METHODISM 

The  attitude  of  the  bishops  of  the  Established  Church  alone 
would  have  made  null  and  void  any  progress  toward  unity  be- 
tween the  Churchmen  and  the  Methodists. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  there  was  no  exception  to 
this  unfriendliness  of  the  bishops.  In  Ireland,  Wesley  sup- 
ported Archbishop  Cobbe,  when  that  prelate  urged  the  formation 
of  a  society  for  the  distribution  of  books  among  the  poor.28 
With  the  Bishop  of  Londonderry  Wesley  had  a  real  friendship.29 
This  bishop  manifested  his  friendliness  toward  Wesley  in  a 
letter  saying,  "It  would  have  given  me  very  sincere  pleasure  to 
have  seen  you  during  your  stay  in  Dublin.  .  .  .  Indeed,  I  did 
not  expect  your  stay  would  have  been  so  short."30  Wesley  in 
turn  showed  his  admiration  for  the  bishop  by  noting:  "The 
bishop  preached  a  judicious,  useful  sermon  on  the  blasphemy 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  is  both  a  good  writer  and  a  good 
speaker;  and  he  celebrated  the  Lord's  Supper  with  admirable 
solemnity."31 

The  relationships  between  the  Bishop  of  Londonderry  and 
the  Methodists  were  not  characteristic  of  the  times.  Many 
bishops  disliked  the  Methodists;  William  Warburton,  Bishop 
of  Gloucester,  was  extremely  violent  in  his  abuse  of  the  Wesleys, 
and  attacked  them  in  a  most  personal  manner.32  Dr.  Coke 
remodeled  his  parish  of  Petherton  somewhat  after  the  fashion 
of  a  circuit.  On  Sundays,  after  the  second  lesson,  he  would 
read  a  paper  of  his  appointments  for  the  ensuing  week,  with  the 
place  and  time  of  his  service.33  Because  of  this  Coke  was  dis- 
missed from  his  curacy  by  the  bishop,  and  he  resolved  to  cast 
his  lot  with  the  Methodists.  Wesley  thought  this  dismissal  the 
deed  of  a  bigot.34  Overton  said:  "It  is  fair  to  add  that  this 
dismissal  from  his  curacy  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  an  act  of 

28  Jour. ,  vol.  iv,  p.  259. 

29  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  511. 

80  Whitehead :  vol.  ii,  p.  289. 
s*Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  65. 
82Fitchett:  p.  344. 
33  Tyerman :  vol.  iii,  p.  214. 
a*Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  169. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  131 

tyranny."35     But  the  Methodists  of  that  time  actually  felt  just 
the  contrary. 

The  motives  which  prompted  the  bishops  to  go  against  the 
Methodists  were  sometimes  very  sincere  and  sensible.  In  a  most 
moderate  manner,  Bishop  Gibson  wrote :  "God  forbid  that  in  this 
profane  and  degenerate  age,  everything  that  has  the  appearance 
of  piety  and  devotion  should  not  be  considered  in  the  most  favor- 
able light  that  it  is  capable  of.  But  at  the  same  time  it  is  surely 
very  proper  that  men  should  be  called  upon  for  some  reasonable 
evidences  of  a  divine  commission  from  God,  a.  when  they  use 
the  language  of  those  who  have  a  commission  from  God,  b.  when 
they  profess  to  think  and  act  under  divine  inspiration,  c.  when 
they  claim  the  effects  of  preaching  as  a  work  of  divine  power, 
d.  when  they  boast  of  the  result  of  their  preaching  as  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  e.  when  they  claim  the  spirit  of  prophecy, 
f.  when  they  speak  of  themselves  in  the  language  and  under  the 
character  of  apostles  of  Christ,  g.  when  they  claim  to  propagate 
a  new  gospel."  The  bishop  analyzed  the  Journals  of  White- 
field  and  brought  these  objections  to  them  in  this  orderly  man- 
ner.36 Gibson  did  not  like  this  enthusiasm;  he  considered  that 
"it  is  one  thing  to  pray  for  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  another  to  pray 
by  the  Holy  Spirit."  Few  people  had  any  ability  to  pray  in 
public ;  hence  the  bishop  took  a  stand  against  it.37  This  position 
taken  by  Gibson  had  much  influence.  His  Pastoral  Letter  of 
1739  was  widely  read  and  went  through  several  editions;  above 
all,  it  tried  to  deal  with  facts.38  Wesley  replied  to  Gibson  and 
argued  to  the  point,  that  the  bishop  was  not  careful  to  distinguish 
the  Methodists  from  the  Moravians;  and  that  both  were  quite 
distinct  groups.39  But  the  bishop  could  not  be  persuaded,  and 
he  continued  his  opposition  to  Methodist  teachers  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  boastful  and  vainglorious ;  and  they  thought  them- 
selves to  be  doing  some  especially  great  work.  Gibson  brought 
out  good  evidence  to  prove  this  point,  for  the  Methodists  very 


m  Life  of  Wesley,  p.  154. 

88  Pastoral  Letter,  1739,  p.  i6ff. 

"Ibid.,  p.  15. 

88  Vide  Bibliography. 

39  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  341. 


132    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

bluntly  said  theirs  was  the  task  of  reforming  the  Church.  Most 
naturally  the  bishops  could  not  tolerate  the  imputation  of  such 
corruption  to  their  Church.40  Nevertheless,  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don was  not  clear  cut  in  his  stand.  He  could  find  fault,  and  that 
ably;  but  he  could  not  suggest  a  remedy.  He  said  that  true 
Christianity  lay  between  the  excesses  of  the  enthusiasts  and  the 
lukewarmness  of  irreligion.41  Gibson  was  correct  in  this.  And 
when  Fitchett  says  of  him:  "He,  like  many  of  his  clergy,  held 
the  curious  theory  that  the  Divine  Spirit  acted  everywhere  in 
general,  but  nowhere  in  particular ;  while  the  deluded  Methodists 
taught  the  incredible  doctrine  that  the  Holy  Spirit  worked  in 
individual  souls,"  it  would  seem  that  Fitchett  did  not  do  Gibson 
justice  for  his  well  thought  out  position.42 

All  the  bishops,  however,  did  not  show  the  restraint  of 
Gibson  in  their  objections  to  the  enthusiasm  of  the  Methodists. 
John  Green,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  could  not  see  any  outward  signs 
that  the  Methodists  could  meet  their  claims.43  Butler,  the  author 
of  the  Analogy  and  Bishop  of  Bristol,  denounced  Whitefield 
and  Wesley  for  their  actions.  "I  hear,  too,  that  many  persons 
fall  into  fits  in  your  societies  and  that  you  pray  over  them."  The 
bishop  objected  to  this  way  of  doing  things  and  advised  Wesley 
to  quit  preaching  here  and  yonder ;  to  settle  down ;  and  to  cease 
to  break  the  law  of  the  Church.  Wesley  told  the  bishop  point 
blank,  that  he  would  work  wherever  he  could  do  the  most  good.44 
Lavington,  of  course,  had  to  be  violent :  "It  is  but  too  notorious, 
that  the  same  enthusiasm  under  the  same  management,  hath 
driven  numbers  of  these  unhappy  creatures  into  direct  madness 
and  distraction,  either  of  a  moping,  or  raving  kind."45  Laving- 
ton drew  up  much  proof  for  this  statement;  just  and  fair  proof 
— which  was  just  contrary  to  his  usual  method  of  attack. 

The  bishops  of  the  Church  saw  the  moral  conditions  of 
their  time,  and  were  concerned  for  it.  Archbishop  Seeker,  in 
1738,  openly  said:  "An  open  and  professed  disregard  for  reli- 

*°  Observations  Upon  Conduct  of  Meth.,  p.  22. 

41  Pastoral  Letter,  p.  4. 

42  Fitchett:  p.  340. 

"Principles  and  Practices  of  Methodists,  p.  24ff. 

44  Whitehead :  vol.  ii,  pp.  120-121. 

45  Enthusiasm,  etc.,  p.  177. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  133 

gion  is  become,  through  a  variety  of  unhappy  causes,  the  dis- 
tinguishing character  of  the  present  age."  He  figured  crime 
and  bad  living  to  be  on  the  increase.  The  clergy  were  not  influ- 
ential; they  were  laughed  at;  they  led  base  lives.  He  urged 
people  everywhere  to  take  life  seriously.46  Gibson,  too,  in  his 
thoroughgoing  manner  went  into  the  situation  confronting  the 
Church  in  detail.  He  warned  the  people  against  lukewarmness 
in  religion.  He  railed  against  formal  Church  attendance,  and 
pleaded  that  the  people  should  learn  to  delight  in  real  devotion 
and  private  prayer.  Sincere  dislike  of  gross  evil  in  self  and 
in  others  was  the  test  of  true  religion  which  he  set  up.  People 
were  playing  at  religion.  "And  there  is  danger  of  their  being 
led  to  think  too  favorably  of  their  condition,  in  an  age  which 
affords  them  so  many  examples  of  notorious  and  open  wicked- 
ness, and  a  total  neglect  of  the  public  worship  of  God/'47  Truly 
Gibson  saw  clearly. 

In  the  light  of  the  above  conviction,  Gibson  scored  the 
people.  Personal  attendance  at  Church,  without  attention  and 
devotion,  was  not  an  act  of  religion.  Men  should  regard  their 
stations  in  life  as  God's  appointments  and  should  serve  them  as 
such.  The  Word  of  God  and  not  the  opinions  of  the  world 
should  be  the  measure  of  man's  duty.  Strict  observance  of  one 
branch  of  duty  was  no  excuse  for  the  neglect  of  another  part. 
Thus  Gibson  spoke  vigorously  for  a  clean  Church  and  national 
life.48  "It  must  always  be  remembered,  in  the  first  place,  that 
we  are  Christian  preachers,  and  not  barely  preachers  of  mo- 
rality.49 

Bishop  Butler  in  his  famous  Analogy  expresses  his  view 
by  saying,  "It  is  come,  I  know  not  how,  to  be  taken  for  granted, 
by  many  persons,  that  Christianity  is  not  so  much  a  subject  for 
inquiry;  but  that  it  is,  now  at  length,  discovered  to  be  fictitious. 
And  accordingly  they  treat  it,  as  if,  in  the  present  age,  this  were 
an  agreed  point  among  all  people  of  discernment;  and  nothing 


"Eight  Charges,  ed.  4,  1790 — quoted  in  Jackson:  Cent,  of  Wes.  Meth., 
pp.  18-19. 

"Pastoral  Letter,  p.  5. 
48  Ibid.,  pp.  6-1 1. 
"Ibid.,  p.  25. 


I34    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

remained  but  to  set  it  up  as  a  principle  of  mirth  and  ridicule,  for 
its  having  so  long  interrupted  the  mirth  and  pleasure  of  the 
world."50  Thus  the  bishops  were  very  much  concerned  with 
the  state'of  affairs  in  their  day,  and  felt  that  every  effort  should 
be  put  forth  within  the  Church  to  remove  the  crying  evils  which 
they  recognized  as  clearly  as  anyone  else. 

With  this  in  mind,  it  can  be  seen  how  the  bishops  viewed 
the  Methodist  movement.  They  felt  that  it  prevented  the 
Church  from  facing  the  evils  of  the  day  with  a  solid  front. 
Butler  told  Wesley,  "If  you  desire  to  be  extensively  useful,  do 
not  spend  your  time  and  strength  contending  for  or  against  such 
things  as  are  of  a  disputable  nature;  but  in  testifying  against 
open,  notorious  vice,  and  in  promoting  real,  essential  holiness."51 
This  was  splendid  advice  to  anybody,  and  this  was  just  what 
Wesley  was  doing.  But  the  bishops  undoubtedly  felt  that  the 
Methodists  caused  strife  and  contention  within  the  Church  and 
thereby  weakened  its  power  to  combat  evil. 

The  bishops  felt  that  Methodist  doctrine  was  disturbing  to 
the  Church.  Wesley  was  accused  of  holding  the  doctrine  of 
"sinless  perfection."  He  denied  to  the  Bishop  of  London  that 
he  held  this  doctrine  or  that  he  even  knew  what  it  meant.52 
Lavington  cited  John  Wesley  as  telling  a  woman  that  she  was 
in  hell  if  she  had  not  the  assurance  of  salvation.  Wesley  in- 
vestigated this  accusation  and  in  A  second  letter  to  the  author  of 
enthusiasm  of  the  Methodists  and  Papists  compared,  he  showed 
Lavington  had  told  an  untruth.53  Lavington  continued  his 
attack  and  said  that  scepticism,  infidelity,  doubts,  and  denials 
of  the  truth  of  revelation,  and  sometimes  even  atheism  itself 
resulted  from  the  Methodists.54 

Not  only  Methodist  doctrine,  but  also  Methodist  moral- 
ity disturbed  the  Church.  Gibson  intimated  that  the  Methodists 
were  not  careful  for  their  conduct.55  Bishop  Home  as  vice- 
chancellor,  before  the  University  of  Oxford  called  the  Meth- 

80  Butler's  Analogy,  Advertisement,  p.  b.  2. 

61  Southey :  vol.  ii,  p.  202. 

62  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  347. 
"Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  373ff. 

**  Enthusiasm,  etc.,  p.  125. 
"Jackson:  Cent,  of  Meth.,  p.  17. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  135 

odists  "the  new  lights  of  the  tabernacle  and  the  Foundry,"  and 
accused  them  of  teaching  a  bad  faith  and  a  lax  morality.56 

The  organization  of  the  Methodists  was  also  thought  to- 
weaken  the  Church.  Gibson  gives  the  list — bands  and  societies; 
superintendents;  exhorters;  quarterly  meetings;  moderators; 
visitations — these  are  all  unwarranted  in  the  law  and  are  there- 
fore illegal.57  Archbishop  Robinson  objected  to  lay  preaching.58 

Thus  on  every  hand,  and  for  every  conceivable  reason,  the 
Methodists  found  themselves  opposed  by  the  bishops.  Some  of 
these  bishops  showed  sanity  in  their  opposition,  others  showed 
none.  For  this  reason  the  Methodists  did  not  trouble  them- 
selves to  obey  the  bishops  in  all  things.  Whitefield  was  said  to 
show  scant  courtesy  to  the  bishops.59  But  though  the  bishops 
were  wrong  in  their  judgments  and  slow  in  their  actions,  Church- 
men felt  that  they  were  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  Church 
and  as  such  should  be  obeyed  until  "they  should  judge  it  proper 
to  revoke  or  supersede  themselves."60  The  Methodists  were  no 
worshipers  of  the  episcopacy,  especially  when  they  thought  these 
bishops  to  stand  in  their  way  for  saving  "England. 

Yet  the  Methodists  would  not  admit  that  they  broke  any 
Church  law  in  their  unhappy  relationships  with  the  bishops. 
"Are  you  not  guilty  of  canonical  disobedience  to  your  bishops?" 
Wesley  was  asked.  "I  think  not.  Show  me  wherein,"  was  his 
answer.61  Wesley  did  not,  however,  think  himself  subjected 
to  the  will  of  a  bishop.  "But  did  you  not  take  oath  to  obey 
him?"  Wesley's  reply  was  emphatic,  "No,  nor  any  clergyman 
in  the  three  kingdoms.  This  is  a  mere  vulgar  error."62  Under 
this  treatment  Wesley  evolved  his  idea  of  Church  government. 
"As  to  my  own  judgment,  I  still  believe  'the  episcopal  form  of 
Church  government  to  be  Scriptural  and  apostolical/  I  mean, 
well  agreeing  with  the  practice  and  the  writings  of  the  apostles. 
But  that  it  is  inscribed  in  Scripture,  I  do  not  see."  This  opinion,. 


"Fitchett:  p.  343- 

w  Conduct  of  Methodists,  p.  2off. 

<*Meth.  Mag.,  1822,  p.  783. 

89  Gibson  :  Earnest  Appeal,  p.  8. 

*°  Downes :  Methodism  Examined,  p.  100. 

"  Letter  to  T.  H.,  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  402. 

92  Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  152. 


136    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

which  Wesley  formerly  accepted,  he  now  rejected.  "Neither 
Christ  nor  the  apostles  prescribe  any  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment," he  concluded.63  The  trend  of  thought  from  Wesley's 
utterance  to  this  day  seems  to  bear  this  statement  out. 

Thus  have  we  seen  that  the  attitude  of  the  bishops  worked 
against  unity.  Whether  they  were  justified  in  holding  sucR 
views  is  not  the  question.  The  Methodists  grew  bitter  and  more 
bitter  against  the  Church  as  a  result  of  this  treatment,  and  at 
last  came  to  a  frame  of  mind  where  they  thought  bishops  not 
needful,  but  an  evil.  Yet  the  bishops  took  even  one  more  step 
away  from  any  possibility  of  unity.  They  confused  the  Meth- 
odists with  Roman  Catholics. 

SECTION  III.  CONFUSION  OF  METHODISTS  WITH  CATHOLICS 
Roman  Catholicism  was  not  at  all  popular  in  England. 
People  had  not  forgotten  the  days  of  James  II.  Catholic  in- 
trigue was  sufficiently  active  in  England  to  keep  the  suspicions 
of  the  people  keyed  to  the  highest  pitch.  Bishop  Porteus,  of 
Chester,  wrote  to  the  people  of  his  parish  and  warned  them 
against  the  efforts  of  the  Catholics  to  make  headway  in  England. 
The  Catholics,  said  he,  tried  to  make  converts  by  :  a.  attempting 
bribery,  b.  by  intermarrying  with  members  of  the  Established 
Church,  and  c.  by  the  practice  of  Catholics  of  showing  a  prefer- 
ence for  Catholic  labor.  Bishop  Porteus  even  went  into  detailed 
instructions  for  the  people,  informing  them  how  best  they  could 
prevent  this  Catholic  propaganda  from  going  ahead,  a.  Parents 
were  to  keep  their  personal  influence  over  their  children  as  long 
as  possible,  b.  they  were  to  send  their  children  to  Protestant 
schools,  and  c.  they  were  to  read  nothing  save  Protestant  publi- 
cations.64 "The  true  secret,  in  short,  for  checking  the  growth 
•of  popery,  or  any  other  corrupt  religion,  is,  lenity  and  vigilance 
in  conjunction."65  This  was  the  suspicious  attitude  which  all 
England  adopted  toward  any  form  of  Roman  Catholicism  dur- 
ing the  eighteenth  century. 

During  the  Stuart  uprising  in  the  north  in  1745,  Wesley 


88  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  284. 

94  Porteus:  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  Chester,  pp.  7-10. 

66  Ibid.,  p.  22. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  137 

came  under  suspicion  of  papacy,  and  therefore  treason.  While 
the  whole  countryside  was  in  an  uproar,  Wesley  knowing  him- 
self to  be  under  suspicion,  visited  one  named  Adams,  an  ex- 
priest,  twice  during  these  weeks  of  peril.66  There  was  little 
sense  in  Wesley's  doing  this.  He  was  accused  of  being  a  papist, 
an  advocate  of  the  Pretender,  of  traveling  through  France  and 
Spain  in  behalf  of  the  house  of  Stuart.67  The  Methodists  were 
said  to  be  masked  Jesuits.68 

One  result  of  this  was  that  Bishop  Lavington  launched  his 
great  polemic  upon  the  Methodists,  The  Enthusiasm  of  the 
Methodists  and  the  Papists  Compared.  In  this  work  Lavington 
compared  the  Methodists  with  old  Catholic  enthusiasts,  such  as 
Saint  Francis,  a  "weak  enthusiast" ;  Saint  Dominic,  "a  contriver 
and  manager  of  the  blessed  instrument  of  conversion" ;  or 
Loyola,  a  "visionary  fanatic  or  scatter  brain."  All  of  these 
Catholics  indulged  in  field  preaching  as  did  the  Methodists.69 
Furthermore,  the  system  of  the  itineracy  was  compared  with  the 
pilgrimages  and  crusades  of  the  Catholics — both  were  mere 
tricks  to  win  admirers.70  Both  Catholics  and  Methodists  laid 
claims  to  divine  direction,  to  the  presence  of  God,  to  raptures 
and  ecstasies;  and  these  claims  were  all  humbug.  "When  the 
blood  and  spirits  run  high,  inflaming  the  brain  and  imagination, 
it  is  most  properly  enthusiasm;  which  is  religion  run  mad."71 
The  Methodists  and  Papists  even  used  the  Scriptures  in  the 
same  spirit.  "They  cannot  open  the  Bible,  and  thereby  turn 
the  Holy  Scriptures  into  a  lottery,  but  they  are  sure  of  a  prize 
...  or  some  special  direction.  They  cannot  read  or  hear  les- 
sons, psalms,  epistles,  and  gospels,  but  they  have  sagacity  enough 
to  find  something  peculiarly  concerning  themselves."  Thus  the 
Methodists  are  quite  as  egotistical  as  the  Catholics  who  lived 
long  before  them.72 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Lavington  had  a  genuine  fear 


68  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  209. 
07  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  191. 
88  Scott:  Op.  cit.,  p.  iv. 

69  Lavington :  Op  cit.,  p.  6ff. 
"Ibid.,  p.  17. 

71/£m/.,  p.  53- 
nlbid.,  p.  71. 


138    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

of  enthusiasm.  The  Methodists  did  have  some  isolated  traits 
similar  to  the  Catholics.  But  how  a  man  of  Lavington's  posi- 
tion and  intelligence  could  ever  fail  to  distinguish  between  the 
Methodists  and  the  Catholics  we  cannot  understand.  How 
sincerely  he  believed  his  main  argument  is  open  to  doubt.  The 
Methodists  usually  have  looked  upon  him  as  the  great  Nero  of 
their  day,  and  one  cannot  well  blame  them. 

Wesley  clearly  realized  that  he  was  accused  of  papist 
opinions.73  He  did  what  he  could  to  enlighten  his  enemies.  He 
wrote  many  letters  to  Lloyd's  Weekly,  answering  the  charges  of 
papacy  made  against  him.74  He  was  very  clear  in  his  statements. 
Once  he  called  the  rulers  of  the  Catholic  Church  since  the  days 
of  Cyprian,  "a  conspiracy  of  execrable  wretches."75  There  was 
little  leaning  toward  the  papacy  in  such  a  statement.  Later  on, 
he  wrote:  "I  insist  upon  it  that  no  government,  not  Roman 
Catholic,  ought  to  tolerate  men  of  Roman  Catholic  persuasion 
.  .  .  who  cannot  give  security  to  that  government  for  their 
allegiance  and  peaceable  behavior."76  This  was  quite  loyal,  and 
also  quite  anti-Catholic.  In  1780  he  wrote  a  letter  that  was 
quite  lengthy  in  dealing  with  this  question  of  Catholicism :  the 
supremacy  of  the  pope;  the  granting  of  pardons;  and  the  truth- 
fulness of  Roman  Catholics.  This  letter  was  so  strong  that 
Tyerman  called  it  "obnoxious."77  After  this  one  would  be 
insane  to  confuse  the  Methodists  with  the  Papists.  They  were 
quite  unlike  in  either  loyalty  or  spirit. 

SECTION  IV.    OPPOSITION  TO  THE  METHODISTS 

Not  only  by  the  bishops  but  also  by  learned  men,  publishers, 
and  others,  the  Methodists  were  attacked.  Early  in  the  move- 
ment, relationships  with  Oxford  were  not  friendly.  In  1768,  six 
students  were  expelled  because  they  were  Methodists  and  at- 
tended conventicles.78  Whitefield  was  very  wroth  over  this. 
Such  meetings  as  in  reality  plotted  against  the  state  were  for- 

73  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  263. 
[*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  4i8ff. 
"°  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  96. 
7_e  Ibid.,  vol.  vi.,  p.  267. 

77  Tyerman :  vol.  iii,  p.  3i8ff. 

78  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  33. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  139 

bidden;  but  these  students  were  ejected  for  praying  extempore 
and  reading  and  singing  hymns.  This  was  all  unjust — such  was 
Whitefield's  conclusion.79  Sarcastically  an  anonymous  writer 
noted :  "What  miracle  was  it  my  beloved,  that  out  of  so  much 
hundreds  of  students  as  are  at  Oxford,  only  six  should  be  found 
guilty  of  praying,  reading,  and  expounding  the  Scriptures.  This 
shows  the  faithfulness  of  their  vigilant  tutors  in  guarding  them 
against  such  pernicious  practices."80  But  the  authorities  were 
firm  and  these  students  stayed  out. 

Wesley  himself  fared  little  better.  Inasmuch  as  he  was 
a  fellow  of  Lincoln  College,  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  preach 
once  a  year  at  Saint  Mary's.  Such  sermons  as  Wesley  preached 
at  Saint  Mary's  he  carefully  wrote  out;  sometimes  in  Latin  as 
well  as  in  English.  No  one  seemed  to  encourage  him.  He  was 
told  that  it  made  little  difference  what  he  preached  about,  for 
no  one  would  care  anyhow.81  Some  of  the  college  authorities 
even  took  Wesley  to  be  a  little  crack-brained,  and  frankly  told 
him  so.82  But  Wesley  was  not  the  man  to  shed  tears  over  such 
treatment;  when  this  opposition  and  indifference  confronted 
him,  he  prepared  to  preach  so  that  those  who  opposed  him 
should  sit  up  and  take  notice. 

August  24,  1744,  was  the  last  time  he  was  asked  to  preach 
at  Saint  Mary's.  He  sought  to  persuade  his  hearers  frankly  to 
admit  that  they  had  never  seen  a  Christian  country  upon  this 
earth.  He  asked  the  self-complacent  college  authorities  if  they 
were  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  indicted  his  hearers  in  assert- 
ing that  righteousness  and  Christianity  were  not  characteristic 
of  the  Fellows  of  the  College,  and  concluded  his  sermon  with 
the  petition :  "Lord,  take  us  out  of  the  mire  that  we  sink  not."83 
It  was  a  ringing  challenge  to  the  religious  deadness  of  Oxford, 
but  was  most  ungratefully  received.  Dr.  Kennicott  recorded 
that  "the  assertion  that  Oxford  was  not  a  Christian  city,  and 
this  country  not  a  Christian  nation,  were  the  most  offensive 


79  Whitefield :  Letter  to  Dr.  Durell,  pp.  13-14- 

80  The  Shaver:  Priestcraft  Defended,  p.  10. 

81  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  478. 

82  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  243. 

83  Works,  vol.  i,  Sermon  iv. 


I4o    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

parts  of  the  sermon,  except  when  he  accused  the  whole  body 
...  of  the  sin  of  perjury."84  Wesley  irritated  his  hearers.  It 
was  no  wonder  that  the  Vice-Chancellor  wished  to  see  the  manu- 
script and  Wesley  recorded,  "I  preached  I  suppose  for  the  last 
time  at  Saint  Mary's.  Be  it  so.  I  am  now  clear  of  the  blood 
of  these  men.  I  have  fully  delivered  my  own  soul."85 

This  was  the  beginning  of  the  end;  yet  it  was  not  until 
June  i,  1751,  that  Wesley  wrote  to  the  Rector  and  Fellows  of 
Lincoln:  "Ego  Johannes  Wesley,  Collegii  Lincolniensis  in 
Academia  Oxoniensis  Socius,  quicquid  mihi  juris  est  in  praedicta 
Societate,  ejusdem  Rectori  et  Sociis  sponte  ac  liber e  resigno; 
illis  universis  et  singulis  perpetuam  pacem  ac  omnimodam  in 
Christo  felicitatem  exoptans."  Thus  he  resigned  his  fellowship, 
and  the  last  thread  of  connection  with  Oxford  was  broken.86 
Opposition  in  Oxford  resulted  in  a  break  with  Oxford. 

The  opposition  of  the  Churchmen  characteristic  at  Oxford 
was  continued  in  other  forms  and  places.  Opposition  developed 
into  general  persecution.  At  Wednesbury,  a  mob  maltreated  a 
certain  Joshua  Constable's  wife  and  wrecked  his  house — all  be- 
cause he  was  a  Methodist.87  Charles  Wesley  reported  that  five 
engines  were  played  upon  the  house  where  he  resided,  and  bull- 
dogs were  urged  on  to  his  horses.88  Time  and  again  John 
Wesley  suffered  physical  abuse  and  nearly  lost  his  life.  This 
violent  physical  persecution  was  not  common  after  175 1-2. 89 
Not  all  joined  in  this  violence.  The  vicar  of  Saint  Martin's 
Church  flayed  those  who  tore  down  houses  with  the  text:  "Ye 
know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of."  He  threatened  to 
leave  his  parish  if  his  people  did  not  conduct  themselves  more 
lawfully.90  This  attitude,  however,  was  the  exception  rather 
than  the  rule. 

Other  forms  of  persecution  continued.  Farces  were  given 
holding  the  Methodists  up  to  ridicule.  One  such  play,  Trick 

**Meth.  Mag.,  1866,  p.  44. 
85  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  147. 
nCf.  Jour.,  June  i,  1751. 

87  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  117 ff. 

88  Charles  Wesley :  Journal,  vol.  i,  pp.  442-449. 

89  Jour.,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  3  and  18. 

90  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  37. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  141 

Upon  Trick,  was  given  at  Newcastle.  It  was  not  a  success,  be- 
cause the  beams  supporting  the  theater  gave  way  soon  after  the 
play  had  started.91  Many  foul  and  bitter  attacks  were  made 
upon  the  Methodists  even  at  the  beginning  of  the  movement. 
Wesley's  and  Whitefield's  journals  were  raked  over  and  at- 
tacked. It  is  not  our  purpose  to  bring  in  all  the  evidence  for 
this  persecution;  because  that  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  work 
and  has  been  done  more  adequately  elsewhere.92  Our  purpose 
is  simply  to  note  that  opposition  was  the  historic  fact.  Wesley 
did  not  desire  "that  anyone  who  thinks  us  heretics  or  schismatics, 
and  that  thinks  it  his  duty  to  preach  or  print  against  us,  as  such, 
should  refrain  therefrom,  so  long  as  he  thinks  it  is  his  duty. 
Although  in  this  case  the  break  can  never  be  healed."93  Wesley 
saw  where  this  opposition  was  leading. 

Other  opposition  came  because  the  Methodists  would  not 
declare  themselves  Dissenters.  Either  they  must  close  their 
meeting  houses,  or  else  they  must  have  them  licensed  as  Dis- 
senters.94 The  Methodists  would  do  neither.  Sermons  were 
preached  against  them  to  the  effect  that  they  sailed  under  false 
colors,  inasmuch  as  they  did  not  come  out  as  Dissenters.95  The 
Methodists  would  not  take  advantage  of  the  Act  of  Toleration, 
for  so  doing  would  make  them  ipso  facto  Dissenters.  They 
proposed  rather  to  be  fined  for  holding  conventicles  before  they 
would  dissent.96  Yet  the  Methodists  stoutly  maintained  their 
antipathy  to  Dissent:  "We  are  not  Dissenters  in  the  only  way 
our  law  acknowledges,  namely,  those  who  renounce  the  service 
of  the  Church.  We  do  not,  dare  not,  separate  from  it.  We  are 
not  seceders  nor  do  we  bear  any  resemblance  to  them.  We  set 
out  upon  quite  opposite  principles.  .  .  .  They  (the  seceders) 
begin  everywhere  with  showing  their  hearers  how  fallen  the 
Church  and  ministers  are :  we  begin  everywhere  by  showing  how 


91  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  no. 

92 1  refer  to  Barr's  Early  Methodists  Under  Persecution.  This  is  the 
latest  and  best  account  of  this  opposition  and  for  fuller  evidence  should 
be  consulted  at  length. 

83 'Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  168. 

94Lecky:  Op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  689. 

95  John  Free :  Sermon,  if '58. 

'"Tyerman:  vol.  iii,  p.  5i2ff. 


142    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

our  hearers  are  themselves.  What  they  do  in  America,  or  what 
their  ministers  say  on  this  subject,  is  nothing  to  us.  We  will 
keep  in  the  good  old  way."97  The  Methodists  desired  to  stay 
in  the  Church. 

So  far,  we  have  seen  that  the  Methodists  faced  opposition 
in  connection  with  their  doctrine,  their  practices,  their  organiza- 
tion, and  that  the  bishops  opposed  them  and  confused  them  with 
Roman  Catholics.  We  have  seen  that  Wesley  and  others  pro- 
fessed a  desire  to  remain  in  the  Church  and  stay  loyal  to  it; 
but  that  in  spite  of  this,  a  separation  from  Oxford  took  place, 
and  the  opposition  in  the  forms  of  mobs,  riots,  persecutions, 
continued  unabated.  According  to  sociological  laws,  there  could 
be  but  one  result  from  all  this. 

Opposition  caused  "concerted  volition"  to  further  develop.98 
A  considerable  majority  of  the  Methodists  had  reacted  similarly 
to  the  stimulus  of  this  opposition  and  the  resemblance  among 
them  resulting  from  this  reaction  is  called  "like-mindedness." 
Opposition  resulted  in  making  the  Methodists  more  or  less  "like- 
minded."99 

At  first  the  Methodists  were  like-minded  in  their  sympa- 
thies; but  as  the  opposition  continued  they  became  impatient  of 
criticism  and  less  and  less  disposed  to  be  conciliatory.  Their 
like-mindedness  was  becoming  "formal."100  Still  the  opposition 
continued  and  this  like-mindedness  became  "deliberate/'  that  is, 
the  Methodists  were  "characterized  by  critical  thinking,  and 
moderate,  well-coordinated  action."101  Methodists  had  discussed 
their  grievances,  fought  off  their  adversaries,  faced  their  oppon- 
ents; but  in  doing  so  they  had  developed  from  a  scattered,  un- 
organized number  of  people  into  a  group  who  were  alike  in  mind 
and  purpose,  and  who  were  alike  because  they  had  thought  and 
reasoned.  There  can  be,  sociologically,  but  one  outcome  from 
such  a  development;  the  Methodists  would  be  obliged  to  co- 
operate. "If  consciousness  of  kind  exists,  then  cooperation  is 


87  Large  Minutes,  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  227. 
18  See  above,  p.  140. 

99  Giddings  :  Op.  cit.,  p.  332. 

100  Ibid.,  Op.  cit.,  p.  339. 
mlbid.,  p.  344- 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  143 

sure  to  follow."102  This  cooperation  had  much  opportunity 
ahead  of  it.  "The  highest  development  of  cooperation  is  seen 
in  the  formulation  of  certain  great  policies  through  deliberation 
upon  the  character,  the  composition,  and  the  circumstances  of 
the  community,  and  in  efforts,  both  public  and  voluntary,  to  carry 
them  to  realization."103 

This  is  just  what  happened  with  the  Methodists.  They 
drew  closer  and  closer  together  as  a  result  of  this  opposition,  and 
finally  their  sense  of  solidarity  was  so  keen  that  they  here  and 
there  began  to  cooperate  to  further  their  solidarity.  When  they 
reached  this  stage  of  action  and  of  thinking,  they  did  not  feel 
the  need  of  the  Established  Church.  They  could  get  along  with 
it.  Opposition  had  made  them  strong,  and  more  or  less  of  a 
unit.  The  fact  to  make  clear  is :  That  the  Methodists  had  reached 
that  point  of  sociological  solidarity  where  they  felt  able  to 
conduct  the  affairs  of  their  group  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to 
themselves  and  without  outside  intervention. 


P.  353. 

p.  395. 


144    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  ACTUAL  SEPARATION  AFTER  THE 
DEATH  OF  WESLEY 

IT  must  not  be  assumed  from  the  discussion  of  the  previous 
chapter  that  the  development  of  solidarity  among  the  Methodists 
was  evenly  uniform  in  every  separate  society  and  at  every  stated 
epoch.  This  sense  of  solidarity  varied  in  proportion  to  the 
amount  of  opposition  which  the  Methodists  of  any  given  place 
had  felt  themselves  to  have  experienced  at  the  hands  of  the 
Established  Church.  Hence  the  situation  was  complex:  some 
felt  strongly  the  unity  of  the  Methodists,  and  possessed  also  the 
resulting  strong  desire  to  get  away  from  the  Church;  others  felt 
this  solidarity  less,  and  had  less  desire,  if  any  at  all,  to  get  away 
from  the  Church.  With  such  different  points  of  view,  unity  of 
action  could  come  only  after  struggle. 

SECTION  I.   PATERNAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  first  intimation  that  the  Methodists  were  not  uniformly 
alike  in  their  thinking  came  from  within  their  own  ranks  and 
against  their  own  leader.  The  government  of  the  Methodists 
had  been  quite  paternal,  for  Wesley  was  an  autocrat  in  the  most 
correct  sense  of  that  word.  He  claimed  the  absolute  right  before 
the  society  of  Bath  to  appoint  exactly  whom  he  wished  to  serve 
them,  and  did  not  exercise  this  right  in  the  most  diplomatic 
manner.1  When  this  question  arose  again,  Wesley  said,  "To  me 
the  preachers  have  engaged  themselves  to  submit ;  to  serve  me  as 
sons  in  the  gospel.  To  me  the  people  in  general  will  submit ;  but 
they  will  not  yet  submit  to  any  other."  Wesley  clearly  pointed 
out  that  this  submission  was  purely  voluntary;  nevertheless,  he 
frankly  admitted  his  power.2 

It  was  undoubtedly  Wesley's  aim  to  keep  this  paternal  form 
of  government  perpetual.  In  1773  ne  wrote  a  long  letter  to  John 

1  Tyerman :  vol.  iii,  p.  305. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  579. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  145 

Fletcher,  urging  him  to  head  the  Methodist  movement  when 
Wesley  died.  Fletcher  being  much  younger  than  Wesley,  it  was 
to  be  expected  that  Wesley  should  die  first.  Wesley  asserted  that 
Fletcher  was  qualified  to  fill  this  position  better  than  anyone  else 
in  the  connection,  but  Fletcher  was  of  a  different  mind  and 
refused  to  accept  this  future  position.3 

Not  all  Methodists  enjoyed  this  paternal  government.  Alex- 
ander M'Nab  rebelled  against  it;  whereupon,  Wesley  expelled 
him  from  the  Methodist  ministry.  Wesley  here  intended  to  put 
down  a  real  rebellion  and  maintain  a  central  authority  in  Meth- 
odism; yet  Tyerman  deems  it  an  injustice  to  M'Nab,  for  the  way 
in  which  he  was  treated.4  If  there  were  murmurings  against 
the  Methodist  system  as  it  existed  while  Wesley  was  alive,  when 
he  died  it  was  to  be  expected  that  these  complaints  would 
increase. 

On  Wesley's  death,  many  issues  which  had  been  smoulder- 
ing, broke  into  flame.  The  strong  central  figure  was  no  longer 
there  to  place  his  weighty  influence  where  it  would  most  steady 
that  good  ship — Methodism. 

SECTION  II.   THE  EUCHARIST 

The  Church  of  England  in  its  effort  to  meet  the  worldliness 
of  the  1 8th  century  was  urging  its  members  to  a  more  frequent 

'  communion.  Archbishop  Tillotson  in  A  Persuasive  to  Frequent 
Communion  represents  this  trend.5  Wesley  vigorously  sup- 

?  ported  this  view  and  continually  preached  upon  the  duty  of  con- 
stant communion,  insisting  that  yearly  communion  was  not 
enough.  The  duty  of  every  Christian  was  to  communicate  as 
often  as  he  could.6  Wesley  constantly  administered  the  com- 
munion to  his  societies  and  kept  up  this  habit  to  the  endj  "After 
reading  prayers,  preaching,  and  administering  the  communion 
at  Bristol,  I  hastened  away  to  Kingswood."  7  These  services 
were  well  attended.  At  London  between  1600  and  1700  persons 


8  Letter,  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  688. 

4  Vol.  iii,  p.  309. 

5  Qui  vide. 

'  Sermon,  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  34Qff. 
7  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  129. 


146    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

joined  in  the  sacramental  service  and  Wesley  secured  five  or- 
dained clergymen  to  help  him.8 

No  objection  was  made  to  this  administration  on  the  part 
of  Wesley.  The  "good  old"  dean  of  St.  Patrick's  Cathedral, 
in  Ireland,  Dr.  Francis  Corbett,  desired  him  to  come  within  the 
rails  to  assist  him  at  the  Lord's  Supper9  And  after  some  of  the 
heat  of  controversy  had  cooled  a  little,  Wesley  was  "well  pleased 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  my  old  opponent,  Bishop 
Lavington."  10 

All  was  well,  so  long  as  Wesley  and  regularly  ordained  min- 
1  isters,  alone,  administered.  But  as  the  resentment  of  the  Meth- 
odists against  immoral  clergymen  increased,  they  more  and  more 
refused  to  receive  the  sacrament  from  themi  This  refusal  was 
f  against  the  spirit  and  intention  of  Article  XXVI  which  said 
'  regarding  the  ministrations  of  unworthy  priests :  "Neither  is  the 
effect  of  Christ's  ordinance  taken  away  by  their  wickedness."  1X 
The  Article  was  formulated  to  meet  the  objections  of  the  Ana- 
baptists who  separated  from  the  Lord's  Table  because  of  impro- 
bitate  ministrorum.  When  the  Church  was  so  outspoken  on  this 
doctrine  the  Methodists  could  expect  little  sympathy  from  it,  if 
they  objected  to  receiving  the  sacrament  from  its  clergy  for 
reasons  similar  to  those  given  by  the  Anabaptists.12  Then  too, 
other  clergymen  were  accused  of  singling  out  the  Methodists  and 
refusing  to  give  them  communion.  Many  people  went  into  dis- 
senting churches,  or  came  to  the  Methodist  societies,  it  was 
alleged,  because  they  would  have  the  sacrament,  but  would  not 
receive  it  from  any  immoral  clergyman.13  Other  laymen  who 
were  educated  would  not  stand  such  treatment.  They  either 
stayed  away  from  Church,  or,  like  Joseph  Cownley  and  Thomas 
Walsh,  "occasionally  administered  the  Lord's  Supper  to  the 
people  who  were  like-minded  with  themselves,  and  also  to  one 
another."  14 


Sermon,  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  7. 
Jour.,  vol.  vi,  p.  59. 

0  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  527. 

1  Cf.,  Article  xxyi. 

2  Charles  Hardwick:  History  of  the  Articles  of  Religion,  p.  104,  note  3. 
3 Jackson:  Life  of  C.  Wesley,  p.  524. 

'Ibid.,  p.  498. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  147 

This  migrating  of  the  people  from  the  Church  to  the  Meth- 
odist societies  put  an  extra  burden  upon  the  preachers  so  that 
n  there  were  not  enough  ordained  men  to  administer  the  Lord's 
I  Supper.  The  people  felt  this  lack  keenly;  and  at  Norwich,  they 
urged  their  preachers  to  give  them  the  sacrament.  These  men— 
Paul  Greenwood,  John  Murlin,  and  Thomas  Mitchell — were  not 
ordained;  but  they  began  to  administer  the  sacrament.  Charles 
Wesley  summoned  these  men  to  London.  He  wrote  to  John 
Wesley,  saying  that  other  Methodists  were  quite  ready  to  take 
the  step  which  was  taken  at  Norwich,  therefore  John  Wesley 
should  come  out  in  the  open  and  make  a  decision  in  this  matter. 
Charles  Wesley  was  quite  aroused.  He  wrote  to  Nicolas  Gilbert, 
"My  soul  abhors  the  thought  of  separation  from  the  Church  of 
England.  You  and  all  the  preachers  know,  if  my  brother  should 
ever  leave  it,  I  should  leave  him,  or  rather  he  me.  .  .  .  Indeed, 
you  must  become  at  last  either  Church  ministers  or  Dissent- 
ing/' 15  These  lay  preachers  were  stopped  from  administering 
i  and  Wesley  avoided  making  a  decision  at  this  time  by  serving 
the  communion  himself.  "I  administered  the  Lord's  Supper  as 
usual  to  the  society,  and  had  at  least  fifty  more  communicants 
than  this  time  last  year.  In  the  evening,  many  hundreds  went 
away  not  being  able  to  squeeze  into  the  room."  16  The  people  of 
Norwich  still  were  not  adequately  lurnished  with  the  opportun- 
ity to  receive  the  sacrament,  while  they  desired  it  as  much  as 
ever.  But  Conference  was  firm  and  noted  that  "Mr.  Walsh 
and  his  friends  engaged  to  desist  from  the  administration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper."  1T  This  was  a  makeshift,  not  a  final  settle- 
ment. 

The  clergy,  too,  had  their  troubles  in  connection  with  this 
question  of  the  eucharist.  They  thought  the  Methodists  too  par- 
ticular about  receiving  the  eucharist  from  certain  clergy.  They 
complained  that  the  Methodists  came  in  large  numbers  to  receive 
communion  in  churches  not  their  own,  putting  the  minister  to 
great  inconvenience  because  he  could  not  administer  to  such 


16  Jackson :  Life  of  C.  Wesley,  p.  774ff. 

16  Jour.,  vol.  v,  p.  487. 

17  Jackson :  Op.  cit.,  p.  504. 


148    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

large  numbers  properly.  He  was  either  obliged  to  turn  these 
new  comers  away,  or  else  run  the  risk  of  giving  the  sacrament 
to  strangers  unfit  to  receive  it.  This  was  a  practical  objection 
and  would  lead  some  to  infer  that  the  rules  of  the  Church  were 
"not  only  broken,  but  notoriously  despised  by  the  new  sect  of 
Methodists."  18 

Matters  were  in  this  unsettled  state  at  the  death  of  Wesley. 
After  his  death  there  was  an  agitation  for  greater  freedom  in 
receiving  the  sacraments.  In  1792,  some  Methodists  announced: 
"We  are  not  contending  for  a  general  separation  of  the  Meth- 
odists from  the  Church,  but  for  every  person  in  our  community 
to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience. 
If  any  who  are  with  us  wish  to  attend  the  service  of  the  Church, 
and  receive  the  sacraments  as  they  have  done  before,  we  lay  no 
restraint  upon  them:  they  are  at  full  liberty  to  enjoy  what  priv- 
ileges they  please  with  us  and  go  to  Church  without  opposition. 
If  any  persons  wish  to  attend  any  Dissenting  Chapel  and  meet 
with  us  as  usual,  we  give  them  full  liberty  to  do  as  they  think  is 
right  before  God.  Many  of  our  societies  cannot  go  with  peace- 
able mind  to  the  Church  for  the  sacrament.  They  will  either 
neglect  the  sacrament  or  go  from  us  to  the  Dissenters.  All  we 
contend  for  is,  that  persons  of  this  determination  may  have  the 
sacrament  from  their  own  preachers."  ^  Methodists  were  be- 
coming tired  of  the  restrictions  placed  upon  them  by  the  Church, 
,  and  were  even  becoming  friendly  with  the  Dissenters  in  their 
desire  to  receive  the  sacrament.  The  situation  annoyed  them. 
"Mr.  Cownley  .  .  .  has  preached  the  gospel  upwards  of  fifty 
years;  .  .  .  this  man  must  refuse  the  sacrament  to  his  own 
children,  .  .  .  though  they  entreat  him  to  give  it  to  them  with 
tears;  this  man,  we  say,  must  send  them  from  himself  to  a 
drunken  parish  priest,  who  neither  fears  God  nor  regards  man, 
to  have  the  sacrament  'duly  administered  to  them.'  "  20  The 
Methodists  felt  the  situation  intolerable,  and  insisted  that  the 
Church  should  provide  for  them  better,  or  else  that  their  own 

18  Gibson :  Observation,  etc.,  p.  6. 

19  Address  to  the  Members  and  friends  of  the  Meth.  Soc.  in  Newcastle, 
Intro,  pp.  v-vi. 

"Ibid.,  p.  15. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  149 

preachers  should  give  them  the  sacrament.     But  the  Church  re- 
mained either  hostile  or  negligent ;  so  the  latter  happened. 

SECTION  III.  HOURS  OF  CHURCH  SERVICE 

The  Methodist  propaganda  was  not  started  to  take  men 

out   of  the   Church;   but   to  transform  their  lives   and   make 

them    more   helpful    to    the    Church.      In    view    of   this    fact, 

,  Wesley  would  not  conduct  any  of  his  services  at  the  time  when 

*  services  were  taking  place  in  the  Established  Church.     At  Ath- 
lone,  though  it  was  Easter,  he  preached  at  three  in  the  after- 
noon— not  during  Church  hours.21     At  Portarlington,  Ireland, 
he  preached  at  eight  and  two  o'clock.22     The  services  in  the 
Church  came  at  another  time.    Once  in  Bristol,  he  preached  three 
times  during  one  Sunday ;  but  never  once  preached  while  the  serv- 
ices were  going  on  in  the  Church.23    At  Zennor,  as  soon  as  the 
Church  service  ended,  he  preached.24     Another  time  "at  eleven 
we  went  to  Church,  and  heard  a  plain,  useful  sermon.    At  two  I 
preached."  25 

Not  only  did  Wesley  refrain  from  preaching  during 
.  Church  hours;  but  he  attended  Church  himself  and  urged  his 
preachers  to  do  so.  In  Liverpool,  he  said :  "I  received  much  com- 
fort at  the  old  Church  in  the  morning,  and  at  St.  Thomas's  in  the 
afternoon.  It  was  as  if  both  sermons  had  been  made  for  me.  I 
pity  those  who  can  find  no  good  at  Church."  26  And  in  the  Large 
Minutes,  the  Methodist  preachers  were  directed  while  in  the 
Church  as  follows:  "Repeat  the  Lord's  Prayer  aloud  after  the 
minister  as  often  as  he  says  it.  Repeat  after  him  aloud  every 
confession,  and  both  doxologies  in  the  communion  service.  Al- 
ways kneel  during  public  prayer."  27  Six  rules  were  laid  down 
by  the  Conference  governing  the  assistants  in  this  matter.  They 

-  were  to:  a.  exhort  all  our  people  to  keep  close  to  the  Church 
and  sacrament,  b.  warn  them  against  despising  the  prayers  of 

21  Jour.,  vol.  iii,  p.  344. 

22  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  408. 
**  Ibid.,  vol.  y,  p.  232. 

24  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  408. 

25  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  340. 

26  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  312. 

27  Works,  vol.  v,  pp.  224-225. 


150    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

the  Church,  c.  against  calling  our  society,  "The  Church,"  d. 
against  calling  our  preachers  "ministers'* ;  our  houses  "Meeting- 
houses" ;  call  them  plainly,  preaching  houses  or  chapels,  e.  do  not 
license  them  as  Dissenters.28  The  Methodists  intended  to  wor- 
ship in  the  Church  and  remain  in  it. 

Wesley  later,  however,  modified  his  position.  Coke  planned 
services  at  Dublin  in  White  friar  Street  during  Church  hours 
for  every  three  Sundays  out  of  four  in  the  month.  Wesley  said, 
"We  must  have  no  more  services  at  Whitefriars  in  the  Church 
hours."  29  Later  on,  however,  Wesley  wrote  a  letter  to  Moore 
granting  such  services.30  And  in  his  sermon  on  the  Ministerial 
Office,  he  defended  his  action  on  the  ground  that  by  permitting 
services  during  Church  hours  in  Ireland,  he  prevented  separation 
from  the  Church.31 

Methodists  were  not  in  hearty  accord  with  Wesley  on  this 
matter.  In  1774  it  was  needful  to  remind  the  Methodists  that 
Conference  had  decided  that  they  should  attend  Church  even 
though  the  officiating  clergyman  were  not  eminent  for  piety. 
Grace  could  be  conveyed  by  wicked  ministers;  so  the  Methodists 
were  urged  to  stay  in  Church  services  and  get  this  grace.32  This 
argument  was  not  accepted,  and  in  1781,  three  preachers  wrote 
to  Wesley  asking  him  whether  or  not  they  should  attend  the 
Church :  a.  when  they  heard  Calvinism  preached,  b.  when  the 
sermon  filled  them  with  prejudice,  c.  and  when  they  were  obliged 
to  tell  the  people  that  they  did  not  like  the  sermon.  They  asked 
Wesley  to  publish  his  answer.  He  answered :  "If  it  does  not  hurt 
you,  hear  them;  if  it  does,  refrain.  Be  determined  by  your  own 
conscience.  Let  every  man  in  particular  act  as  he  is  'persuaded 
in  his  own  mind/  "33  An  actual  change  of  front  on  this  question 
took  place;  for  Wesley  was  fully  aware  of  the  state  of  mind  of 
his  preachers.  He  knew  they  were  but  looking  for  the  oppor- 
tunity to  avoid  attendance  upon  the  services  of  the  Church. 


28  Works,  vol.  v,  p.  227. 

29  Tyerman :  vol.  iii,  p.  543. 

30  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  543. 

31  Sermons,  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  543. 

32  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  368ff. 

33  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  307. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  151 

A  year  later  he  was  asked  if  the  Methodists  should  go  to 
Church  if  the  preachers  did  not  preach  the  truth  and  frankly 
admitted  that  this  question  troubled  him.  "I  still  advise  all  our 
friends,  when  this  case  occurs,  quietly  and  silently  to  go  out. 
Only  I  must  earnestly  caution  them  not  to  be  critical ;  not  to  make 
a  man  an  offender  by  a  word ;  no,  nor  for  a  few  sentences,  which 
any  who  believe  the  decrees  may  drop  without  design."  Only 

*  deliberate  attempts  to  preach  untruth  should  drive  Methodists 
away  from  the  Church  service.34 

The  Methodists  became  bolder  when  they  saw  Wesley's 
line  of  thinking.  In  1786  Dr.  Coke  suggested  to  the  Conference 
that  in  large  towns,  Methodist  services  ought  to  be  held  in 
Church  hours.  "Upon  hearing  this,  Mr.  Charles  Wesley,  with 
a  very  loud  voice  and  in  great  anger,  cried  out,  'No,'  which  was 
the  only  word  he  uttered  during  the  whole  of  the  Conference  sit- 
tings," Mr.  Mather,  undaunted,  confirmed  what  Coke  had 
said.35  The  people  at  Deptford  also  urged  Wesley  to  allow  Sun- 
day service  in  the  room  at  the  time  of  Church  service.  But 
Wesley  clearly  saw  that  to  allow  this,  would  be  to  allow  and  en- 
courage separation,  and  that  this  was  not  only  inexpedient,  but 
also  quite  unlawful  for  him  to  do.36  He  therefore  would  not 

'  permit  this  change  of  hours,  though  he  had  openly  ordained. 
The  people  still  stayed  in  the  chapel  at  Deptford,  he  recorded,  even 
though  he  did  not  change  the  time  of  service.37  But  this  con- 
stant desire  of  his  people,  tended  continually  to  modify  Wesley's 

}  attitude,  and  in  1786,  Conference  permitted  services  during 
Church  hours  in  Yorkshire  under  the  following  conditions : 

a.  When  the  minister  is  a  notoriously  wicked  man. 

b.  When  he  preaches  Arian  or  any  equally  pernicious  doc- 

trine. 

c.  When  there  are  not  churches  in  the  town  sufficient  to 

contain  half  the  people. 

d.  When  there  is  no  Church  at  all   within  two  or  three 

miles.38 


"Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  308. 
35-  Tyerman :  vol.  iii,  p.  478. 

36  Jour.,  vol.  vii,  p.  217. 

37  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  241. 

38  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  191. 


152    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

This  was  a  compromise,  and  with  this  question  not  settled,  Wes- 
ley died. 

Insufficiency  of  church  accommodation  was  an  important 
factor  at  this  time.  The  testimony  of  James  Alan  Park,  after- 
wards a  justice  of  the  Common  Pleas,  and  others,  would  bear  out 
the  contention  of  the  Methodists.  In  1814  Park  wrote  to  Bishop 
Howley  of  the  See  of  London  saying,  that  the  want  of  oppor- 
tunity for  public  worship  he  believed  to  be  "one  great  cause  of 
the  apparent  defection  from  the  Church,  and  of  the  increase  of 
Sectarism  and  Methodism".  The  rapid  shifting  of  the  popula- 
tion caused  by  the  rise  of  industry  in  the  eighteenth  century  had 
not  been  met  by  the  Church.  New  parishes  were  not  created  in 
the  industrial  centers,  while  the  old  parishes  were  too  poorly 
equipped  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  dense  population.  It  was  not 
until  1818  that  the  Church  became  sufficiently  aroused  over  this 
need  to  meet  it  by  founding  the  Church  Building  Society  with 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  as  its  president,  and  the  king  as 
one  of  its  chief  patrons.  But  when  this  step  was  taken  to  supply 
the  necessary  churches  the  Methodist  movement  had  been  well 
launched  and  already  counted  as  of  Dissent.  The  time  to  organ- 
ize the  Church  Building  Society  was  when  Wesley  was  alive. 
This  might  have  kept  his  followers  within  the  Established 
Church.  But  the  Church  was  not  farsighted  enough  to  do  this.39 
The  Conference  of  1788  had  ruled  that:  "The  assistants 
shall  have  discretionary  power  to  read  the  prayer-book  in  the 
preaching  houses  on  Sunday  mornings,  where  they  think  it  ex- 
pedient, if  the  generality  of  the  society  acquiesce  with  it;  on  con- 

1  dition  that  Divine  service  never  be  performed  in  the  Church  hours 
on  the  Sundays  when  the  sacrament  is  administered  in  the  par- 
ish Church,  where  the  preaching  house  is  situated,  and  the  people 

?  be  strenuously  exhorted  to  attend  the  sacrament  in  the  parish 
Church  on  these  Sundays".40  In  other  words :  Services  could  be 
held  in  Church  hours  when  communion  was  not  to  be  given. 
This  was  a  concession  on  the  part  of  Conference;  but  the  people 


89  Stephens  and  Hunt:  History  of  the  Eng.  Church,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  pp. 
77-79- 


"Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  208. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  153 

were  not  satisfied.  Samuel  Bradburn  took  this  matter  up  and 
reviewed  the  history  of  this  question  and  Wesley's  decisions  in 
•detail.  "He  changed  the  time  of  service  in  the  Foundry  from 
being  early  in  the  morning  only,  on  Sundays  as  well  as  other 
days,  to  Church  hours  on  Sundays  in  the  forenoon.  And  not- 
withstanding the  insignificance  of  this  change,  it  was  the  real 
source  of  every  alteration  that  followed  ...  the  generality  of 
the  people  did  not  consider  it  as  dissenting  from  the  Church, 
though  they  had  no  more  to  do  with  the  Church,  as  to  real  con- 
nection or  subordination,  than  with  the  Jews."  41  In  this  way 
Bradburn  traced  the  development  of  this  subject  and  urged  that 
services  be  held  unconditionally  in  Church  hours.  At  Salford, 
Bradburn  did  change  the  time  of  the  Methodist  services  from 
eight  to  ten  o'clock,  and  called  it  "crossing  the  Rubicon."  42 

Thus  the  Methodists  had  turned  in  their  practice.  They  no 
longer  urged  their  people  in  a  most  solemn  manner  to  attend  the 
Church  service  every  Sunday.  The  matter  was  being  reversed. 
Many  of  them  were  holding  their  own  services  at  hours  identical 
with  those  of  service  in  the  Church  and  this  made  the  former 
position  untenable.  It  indicated  the  growth  of  a  new  and  dif- 
ferent kind  of  spirit  in  Methodism — a  spirit  hostile  toward  the 
Established  Church. 

SECTION  IV.    THE  CONFUSION  AFTER  WESLEY'S  DEATH 

With  nothing  definitely  settled  regarding  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  with  no  out  and  out  ruling  by  Conference  permitting  services 
in  Church  hours,  Methodism  faced  a  complex  situation.  Wesley 
had  died.  No  sooner  was  he  buried,  than  the  Methodists  were 
deluged  with  pamphlets  urging  strict  conformity  with  the  Estab- 
lished Church.43  This  question  eventually  had  to  be  settled. 
Some  were  beginning  to  object  to  the  way  in  which  Methodism 
was  being  conducted.  They  did  not  like  the  idea  of  having  one 
hundred  men  control  the  Conference.  Coke  had  previously 
pointed  out  that  this  was  giving  the  one  hundred  men  too  much 
power,  while  Wesley  himself  seemed  to  have  sympathized  with 

"Bradburn:  The  Question:  Are  Methodists  Dissenters?  p.  u. 

42  W.  H.  S.  Proceedings,  vol.  i,  p.  42-43. 

43  Myles :  Chronological  History  of  the  People  Called  Methodists,  p.  208. 


i54    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Coke's  criticism.44  Many  made  an  attempt  to  nullify  the  Deed 
of  Declaration  which  legally  incorporated  these  one  hundred  men 
into  the  Conference;  but  in  vain.  At  the  same  time,  others  felt 
that  "the  moment  that  the  Deed  was  superseded,  there  would  have 
been  an  end  of  the  Wesley  an  itineracy  and  order."  They  were 
afraid  of  more  democracy.45  Of  Wesley's  influence,  some  of  the 
preachers  thought'  that  it  fell  to  the  Conference,  some  of  the 
trustees  thought  that  it  fell  to  them,  and  Mr.  Kilham  and  his 
friends  thought  that  it  fell  to  the  people  at  large.46  The  execu- 
tors of  Wesley's  will  added  to  this  complexity,  for  they  reported 
that  they  must  still  keep  control  over  Wesley's  property  and  that 
they  would  not  give  it  to  the  Conference.47  Many  were  the  cross- 
currents of  opinion  and  feeling  that  were  threatening  Meth- 
odism at  this  crucial  time. 

To  increase  this  confusion,  such  productions  as  an  Address 
to  the  Members  and  Friends  of  the  Methodist  Society  in  New- 
castle was  distributed  which  said,  "Whoever  reads  what  Mr. 
[Charles]  Wesley  published,  will  easily  perceive,  he  did  not 
think  always  alike  respecting  the  Church  of  England."  48  Brad- 
burn  told  troubled  Methodists  that  he  had  heard  him  say,  he 
should  be  afraid  to  meet  his  father's  spirit  in  paradise  if  he  left 
the  Church.  Then  of  his  brother:  "Mr.  John  Wesley,  on  the 
other  hand,  as  we  have  seen,  remained  therein  with  a  doubting 
conscience."  49  The  whole  question  of  whether  the  Methodists 
were  Dissenters,  was  raised.  "If  clergymen  were  persecuted  for 
truth  and  driven  out  of  the  Church,  as  Mr.  Wesley  and  his 
brother  were,  we  are  ready  to  receive  them  with  open  arms;  but 
when  they  leave  the  Church  of  their  own  accord  .  .  .  they 
are  more  Dissenters  than  any  of  the  Methodist  preachers,  and 
whether  designedly  so  or  not,  they  are  in  reality  sapping  the  very 
foundations  of  the  Church."  50  This  treatise  further  quoted 
Wesley  with  saying,  "As  soon  as  I  am  dead,  the  Methodists!,  will 

44Myles:  p.  201. 

45 Jackson:  Cent,  of  Wcs.  Meth.,  p.  159. 

46  Myles  :  p.  vii. 

47  Ibid.,  p.  207. 

48  Intro.,  p.  iv. 

49  The  Question,  p.  10. 
10  Ibid.,  p.  12. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  155 

l>e  a  regular  Presbyterian  Church."  51  Indeed,  a  kind  of  separa- 
tion had  already  taken  place,  it  urged,  because  people  stayed 
away  from  the  Church  on  account  of  a  bad  vicar,  and  they  never 
returned.52 

Coke  very  boldly  said  that  many  of  the  people  would  have 
separated  from  the  Church  long  ago,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
superior  wisdom  of  Wesley,  and  assumed  that  all  were  ready  to 
separate.53  Methodists  were  far  from  being  unanimously  in- 
clined to  separate.  Wesley  was  gone.  They  were  confused, 
and  did  not  know  how  to  act  in  unison. 

In  this  confusion  Conference  was  able  to  assemble  in  1791, 
and  the  men  whose  names  were,  enrolled  in  the  Deed  of  Declara- 
tion voted  by  ballot  for  a  president  and  secretary.54  A  moder- 
ately inclined  man,  William  Thompson,  was  elected  president.55 
Conference  was  able  to  pull  itself  together  and  made  rules  gov- 
erning the  office  of  president.  In  1792  it  ruled  that  a  president 
could  not  succeed  himself,  and  could  not  be  elected  oftener  than 
once  in  eight  years,  for  his  power  ceased  at  the  close  of  Confer- 
ence.56 The  Conference  of  1793  gave  all  preachers  who  had 
travelled  fourteen  years,  additional  rights.57  But  even  this  work 
was  bitterly  attacked  and  the  president  of  the  Conference  was 
called  a  generalissimo.  The  movement  was  compared  with  that 
of  Loyola  and  said  to  be  just  as  dangerous;  Conference  was  a 
pure  hierarchy;  its  members  did  not  have  equal  rights;  its  min- 
isters were  mere  puppets;  the  one  hundred  who  could  vote  were 
an  imperium  in  imperio.63 

A  little  of  the  work  of  organization  was  also  done  in  spite 
of  this  confusion  of  program  resulting  from  the  death,  of  Wes- 
ley. The  whole  of  Methodism  in  the  three  kingdoms  was  divided 
into  twenty-seven  districts.  Each  assistant  had  charge  of  a  dis- 
trict, with  the  power  to  summon  the  preachers  of  his  district  in 

51  Ibid.,  pp.  18-19. 

62  Ibid.,  p.  15. 

53  Sermon  on  Asbury's  Ordination,  p.  10. 

M  Myles :  p.  197. 

55  Stevens :  Op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  33. 

"Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  259. 

"Warren:  vol.  i,  p.  102. 

68  Beard :  Rise    .    .    .    of  Methodism,  p.  sff. 


156    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

full  connection,  for  any  critical  occasion.  The  preachers  so- 
summoned,  met  and  chose  a  chairman  and  could  make  decisions 
that  were  final  until  the  following  Conference.  Nothing,  how- 
ever, could  be  done  contrary  to  a  previous  ruling  of  Conference.59 
In  each  district  there  were  to  be  not  less  than  three,  nor  more 
than  eight  circuits.60  The  Conference  of  1791  authorized  a  com- 
mittee, composed  of  one  member  elected  by  every  district  in  the 
three  kingdoms,  and  this  committee  was  to  provide  a  plan  for 
stationing  the  preachers.61  Those  whom  Wesley  had  authorized 
in  his  will  to  preach  and  appoint  preachers  for  the  New  Chapel  in 
City  Road,  and  King  Street  Chapel  in  Bath,  signed  an  agreement 
that  they  would  work  in  an  entire  subservience  to  the  Confer- 
ence.62 

Thus  far  was  the  program  and  reorganization  of  the  work 
carried  in  peace.  But  so  great  was  the  confusion,  so  varied 
the  ideas  of  what  ought  to  be  done,  so  strong  the  contention, 
that  no  further  progress  was  made  without  turmoil  and 
strife.  Those  who  wished  to  remain  within  the  Established 
Church  were  shocked  at  the  suggestions  made  in  the  various 
pamphlets.  Those  who  wished  to  be  free  from  the  restraints  and 
oversights  of  the  Church,  stood  for  greater  changes  than  had 
taken  place  or  were  suggested. 

SECTION  V.   PARTY  STRUGGLE  AND  THE  SACRAMENT 

There  were  two  parties  at  work  with  their  programs  in 
Methodism.      The    radical    party    advocated    that    Conference 
/should  not  only  ordain,  but  have  a  definite  rule  about  it.     It 
accused  Conference  of  avoiding  this  entire  question  of  ordina- 
tion.63   This  party  felt  that  Conference  had  the  entirely  wrong 
view  of  the  matter  of  the  sacrament.  '  The  decision  of  the  Con- 
ference of  1793  was  attacked;  because  it  made  a  minister  go  out 
I  to  his  people  and  urge  them  not  to  take  the  sacrament,  but  if  the 
'  people  insisted  they  could  receive  it  from  their  preachers.     This 

59  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  241. 

^Myles:  p.  211. 

61  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  247. 

62 Warren:  vol.  i,  p.  51. 

63  Paul  and  Silas :  Earnest  Address    ...    p.  22. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  157 

,  attitude  of  the  Conference  encouraged  the  people  to  go  without 
the  sacrament.  64J  But  when  Conference  decided  by  lot,  whether 
it  would  permit  its  preachers  to  use  the  sacrament  for  one  year, 
the  wrath  of  this  party  knew  no  bounds.  "After  much  wrang- 
ling and  debate,  God  Almighty  suffered  the  Conference  to  enter 
into  a  temptation,  which  will  disgrace  Methodism  to  the  end  of 
the  world.  .  .  .  One  of  the  best  men  we  have  in  our  connec- 
tion out  of  zeal  for  peace,  tempted  the  Conference  to  decide  by 
lot,  what  was  self  evident.  Lots  ought  never  to  be  used,  but 
where  it  is  impossible  to  do  without  them."  One  Isaac  Brown 
ran  out  of  Conference  crying  shame  when  this  was  done.  Many 
of  the  Conference  would  not  vote  at  all;  yet  the  minutes  read: 
"All  were  satisfied.  All  submitted."  They  insisted  that  the 
minutes  contained  what  was  not  true  and  that  this  was  no  states- 
manlike way  of  settling  such  a  question.65 

The  radicals  were  also  opposed  to  the  domination  of  the 
trustees  over  the  worship  of  the  Methodists.  The  people  should 
worship  as  they  saw  fit  and  not  be  controlled  by  a  minority  of 
trustees.  "The  Conference  had  better  allow  the  people  this  priv- 
ilege freely,  as  have  it  extorted  from  them."  The  trustees 
should  be  treated  with  respect ;  but  they  should  not  be  allowed  to 
hinder  the  people  from  worshiping  as  they  saw  fit.66  Further- 
more, to  follow  Wesley,  was  not  to  stay  in  the  Church  regard- 
less of  any  result.  To  follow  Wesley's  plan  would  mean:  to 
ordain;  to  wear  gowns  and  bands  if  necessary;  to  have  services 
in  Church  hours  if  found  useful;  to  make  an  avowed  separation 
if  good  people  required  it;  in  fact  this  party  cared  for  no  manner 
of  compromise.67 

To  offset  this  party  and  balk  it  in  its  work,  there  was  the 
conservative  group.  This  party  worked  hard  to  steer  a  middle 
course  and  stated:  "The  Methodists  as  a  community  are  not, 
and  with  propriety  cannot  be  strictly  either  Church  people  or 
Dissenters;  but  a  society  'whose  only  bond  of  unity  is  piety,' 
and  that  admits  indiscriminately  Churchmen,  Dissenters,  or  what 

"Ibid.,  p.  8. 

"Ibid.,  p.  6. 

88  Paul  and  Silas:  Op.  cit.,  p.  17. 

67  Ibid.,  p.  5. 


158    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

«lse,  provided  they  give  Scriptural  proofs;  desire  to  flee  from 
the  wrath  to  come.  We  have  no  rule  which  requires  our  people 
to  belong  either  to  the  Church  or  to  the  Dissenters."68J  These 
conservatives  saw  clearly  that  Methodism  was  at  a  crisis.  They 
conscientiously  sought  to  steer  the  via  media,  and  yet  to  lean 
toward  a  strong  power  on  Conference,  feeling  in  this  crisis  that 
it  would  not  be  well  for  the  people  to  have  too  much  power,  for 
this  would  lead  to  temptation  and  corruption.  Conference  was 
not  put  in  the  way  of  this  temptation,  whereas  the  people  were, 
therefore  the  conservatives  would  pay  no  attention  to  Kilham, 
and  worked  for  a  strong  centralization  of  power  in  Conference.69 
This  party  had  much  influence  with  the  Conference  inasmuch 
as  it  proposed  granting  large  powers  to  that  body,  and  under  its 
influence  the  Conference  of  1792  dealt  with  the  matters  of 
Church  hours,  the  checking  of  enthusiasm,  etc.,  in  a  compromis- 
ing manner.  It  ruled  that  "no  ordination  shall  take  place  in  the 
Methodist  connection  without  the  consent  of  the  Conference  first 
obtained,"  and  anyone  who  broke  this  rule  was  thereby  auto- 
matically excluded  from  the  Conference.70  This  action  was 
taken  in  the  face  of  requests  that  the  Conference  give  greater 
liberties  to  ordain.  The  Conference  of  1793  also  showed  the 
influence  of  this  party.  It  ruled  "that  no  gowns,  cassocks,  bands, 
surplices,  shall  be  worn  by  any  of  the  preachers."  Even  the 
title  "Reverend"  was  not  to  be  used  by  any  of  the  preachers. 
Yet  the  distinction  between  ordained  and  unordained  preachers 
was  to  be  dropped.71  This  action,  taken  in  1793,  was  reaffirmed 
in  the  Conference  of  the  following  year.  Conference  ruled  that 
it  still  did  not  desire  the  use  of  the  title  "Reverend" ;  preaching 
in  Church  hours  was  not  permitted  only  for  special  reasons,  and 
then  "when  it  will  not  cause  a  division  among  the  people" ;  the 
preachers  were  "not  to  baptize  only  when  it  was  to  promote 
peace  and  concord."72  This  shows  that  this  conservative  party 
was  strong  and  that  it  had  much  influence  with  the  Conference 


88  Crowther :  Crisis  of  Methodism,  p.  6. 

89  Ibid.,  Christian  Order,  passim. 
™  Minutes,  vol.  i,  pp.  259-260. 

71  Ibid.,  pp.  277-278. 
"Ibid.,  p.  299. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  159 

in  putting  its  policies  into  effect.  The  struggle  within  Methodism 
over  the  matter  of  the  sacraments,  was  actually  a  struggle  taking 
place  between  the  radicals  and  the  conservatives. 

Stevens  said  that  Wesley  had  been  dead  no  longer  than 
two  months  before  the  question  of  the  sacrament  came  to  the 
front.  Laymen  of  Hull,  Birmingham,  and  Sheffield,  issued  a 
protest  against  it  in  print.73  The  reason  given  for  this  was 
that  "a  large  proportion  of  Methodists  had  been  Dissenters,  and 
were  whether  conscientiously  or  whimsically  unwilling  to  resort 
to  the  national  Church  for  the  sacraments."74  This  does  explain 
one  of  the  real  causes  for  the  disturbance  within  Methodism 
over  the  question  of  the  sacraments;  but  the  underlying  reason 
for  the  rise  of  this  question  was  the  fact  that  it  had  never  been 
definitely  settled  while  Wesley  was  alive.  In  1792  the  uneasi- 
ness respecting  this  matter  increased  throughout  Methodism,  for 
.the  people  missed  the  sacraments  which  John  Wesley  was  wont 
j  to  administer  to  them  when  he  preached.  Some  preachers  wished 
to  furnish  this  need,  others  thought  it  unwise;  so  the  question 
was  brought  into  the  foreground.75 

Every  Methodist  knew  that  separation  from  the  Church 
was  an  actual  fact  in  theory  and  practice  as  soon  as  the  Meth- 
odists could  freely  have  the  sacrament  in  their  own  meeting 
I  houses.  The  Conference  of  1792  therefore  decided :  "The  Lord's 
Supper  shall  not  be  administered  by  any  person  among  our 
societies  in  England  and  Ireland ;  for  the  ensuing  year,  on  any 
consideration  whatsoever."76  There  was  so  little  unity  about 
this  matter,  that  the  above  decision  was  reached  only  by  drawing 
I  the  above  mentioned  lot.  Adam  Clarke  sought  thereby  to  settle 
the  matter,  but  it  was  merely  a  poor  attempt  to  compromise.77 
As  a  result  of  this,  the  Conference  of  1793  was  obliged  to  say 
frankly  that  it  faced  a  dilemma.  Some  wished  to  keep  the  sacra- 
ment out  of  the  chapels  in  accord  with  the  ruling  of  the  previous 
Conference,  others  threatened  to  leave  the  Methodists  if  they 


78  Vol.  iii,  p.  27. 


"Myles:  p.  219. 
78  Minutes,  p.  260. 
.,  p.  263. 


160    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

did  not  have  these  sacraments.  To  meet  this  situation  the  Con- 
ference again  sought  a  compromise  by  moving:  "that  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Supper  shall  not  be  administered  by  the 
preachers  in  any  part  of  our  connection,  except  where  the  whole 
society  is  unanimous  for  it,  and  will  not  be  content  without  it; 
ancl  even  in  those  few  exempt  societies,  it  shall  be  administered 

,  as  far  as  practical,  in  the  evening  only,  and  according  to  the 

j  form  of  the  Church  of  England.  For  we  could  not  bear  that 
the  sacrament  which  was  instituted  by  our  Lord  as  a  bond  of 
peace  and  union  should  become  a  bone  of  contention."78  Con- 
ference was  evidently  being  forced  by  some  of  the  churches,  yet 
tried  to  make  it  appear  that  the  minority  of  Methodists  were 
forcing  it  to  make  this  concession.  But  minorities  do  not  force 
legislative  bodies  alone;  they  can  do  so  only  with  the  help  of 
the  majority.  1  The  people,  in  fact,  had  become  used  to  having 

f  the  sacraments,  and  they  did  not  like  the  action  of  the  previous 
Conference  taking  them  away  from  them.  Conference  at  this 
time  frankly  said,  "it  is  the  people  .  .  .  who  have  forced  us 
into  this  deviation  from  our  union  with  the  Church  of  Eng- 

i  land."79    This  "deviation"  was  a  conscious  separation. j 

The  Conference  of  1793  was  a  compromise  as  well  as  the 
one  before  it;  hence  one  is  not  surprised  to  see  that  the  practice 
of  administering  the  communion  was  reported  to  have  extended 
to  48  circuits  and  108  chapels  in  the  Conference  of  I794.80 
Many  had  availed  themselves  of  the  provisions  granted  by  the 
Conference  of  1793.  In  1795,  Sutcliffe,  a  member  of  the  liberal 
party,  came  out  with  a  strong  argument  for  a  greater  liberty  in 
this  matter.  He  brought  forward  the  old  argument  of  the  dissi- 
pation, debauchery,  fraud,  and  revelings  of  the  clergy  as  a 
reason  for  non-attendance  upon  the  sacrament.81  He  said:  "Yet 
after  the  nicest  calculation,  I  question  whether  more  than  5,000 
of  60,000  English  Methodists  regularly  receive  communion  in 
the  Established  Church  .  .  .  there  are  more  than  50,000  who 
live  almost  in  neglect  of  this  sacred  and  solemn  institution" — 

78  Minutes,  vol.  i,  pp.  279-280. 
™  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  280. 

80  Ibid.,  pp.  294-295. 

81  Christian  Liberty,  p.  9. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  161 

this  being  the  case,  Conference  must  provide  for  this  need  in 
.  the  Church.82     The  Methodists  were  too  poor  to  own  sittings 
|  in  the  Church,  and  when  they  crowded  large  churches  to  hear 
good  sermons  they  were  ordered  out  when  it  came  time  for  the 
•  communion.     The  clergy  did  not  want  Methodists  at  their  com- 
munion services.83    These  were  the  reasons  why  the  Methodists 
should  be  at  full  liberty  to  have  their  own  communion  services. 
A  wide  and  sympathetic  hearing  was  given  to  all  argumentation 
of  this  nature.     The  determination  of  the  Methodists  was  in- 
creasing. 

Conference  was  finally  obliged  to  note  the  trend  of  senti- 

Iment,  and  in  1796  it  gave  the  district  superintendents  accurate 

9  ^instructions  in  regard  to  the  communion.     Each  society  that 

•wished  the  sacrament  should  have  it.     If  the  superintendent 

would  not  give  it,  he  had  to  supply  a  properly  qualified  preacher 

who  would.     No  preacher  was  to  urge  his  people  to  have  this 

communion;  neither  was  he  to  keep  it  from  them.     They  were 

to  be  left  free  to  decide  upon  this  matter  as  they  wished.84    This 

arrangement  had  all  the  marks  of  a  bona  fide  separation.     The 

people  could  do  as  they  pleased  about  separating.    The  outcome 

of  this  one  can  see  in  the  Plan  of  Pacification,  which  was  brought 

forward  in  1795. 

SECTION  VI.    TRUSTEEISM  AND  THE  METHODIST  NEW 
CONNECTION 

As  the  struggle  raged  between  the  radicals  and  the  con- 
servative party  in  regard  to  the  sacrament,  so  did  the  struggle 
wax  warm  between  these  same  parties  in  regard  to  the  position 
m  Methodism  of  trustees  of  property.  Conference  had  none 
too  good  an  opinion  of  the  trustees,  for  in  a  circular  letter  of 
I793>  it  sa-id  that  there  were  disloyal  trustees  who  did  not 
adequately  support  Methodist  work,  but  rather  bred  discontent 
by  holding  sittings  in  Dissenting  meeting  houses.  Conferences 
suspected  them  of  desiring  to  get  all  power  into  their  hands.85 

82  Op.  dt.,  p.  8. 

88  Op.  tit.,  p.  13. 

84 Warren:  vol.  i,  p.  151. 

85  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  281  ff. 


1 62    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Feeling  at  this  time  ran  high  as  was  evidenced  by  the  tone  of 
this  letter.  Conference  thought  of  these  men  as  having  ten- 
dencies toward  the  Dissenters.  Abel  Stevens  called  them  the 
"high-church  lay-aristocracy  of  Methodism."86  And  the  later 
actions  of  these,  he  characterized  as :  "a  blow  at  the  fundamental 
plan  of  Methodism;  and  generally  followed,  it  would  have  de- 
stroyed the  itinerant  system  by  subjecting  the  pulpit  to  local 
control."87  Both  of  these  opposite  views  do  not  deny  but  that 
trusteeism  tended  to  destroy  the  feeling  of  unity  which  made 
Methodism  such  a  movement  as  it  was. 

This  tense  feeling  came  to  an  expression  when  the  trustees 
ousted  Henry  Moore,  a  preacher  ordained  by  Wesley,  from 
a  Methodist  chapel  in  Bristol ;  because  he  had  not  been  appointed 
to  the  said  chapel  by  them.88  Just  previous  to  this  action  they 
had  requested  Conference  for  the  right  to  sit  with  that  body, 
and  to  decide  with  it  regarding  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ment; but  Conference  did  not  let  these  trustees  become  a  part 
of  itself;  instead,  it  sought  to  compromise  the  matter  and  to 
do  this,  issued  rules  governing  the  actions  of  the  trustees.89 
The  principle  involved  in  this  action  of  the  trustees  was  two- 
fold :  it  was  a  question  of  the  extent  of  the  power  of  the  Con- 
ference, and  it  was  a  question  of  further  deviation  from  the 
Church.  "The  Conference  may  be  assured  that  the  Bristol 
trustees  desire  most  earnestly  to  concur  with  them  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  preachers  for  this  circuit,"  but  the  trustees  advised 
Conference  to  send  only  able  men,  for  no  others  would  be  ac- 
ceptable. This  was  the  attitude  of  the  trustees,  while  Confer- 
ence insisted  upon  the  subordination  of  the  trustees  to  its  will.90 
Yet  the  trustees  added  that  it  was  not  a  question  of  whether 
the  trustees  controlled  or  not;  but  rather  a  question  of  whether 
Henry  Moore  should  turn  into  Dissenters  the  society  of  Bristol; 
of  whom  nineteen  out  of  twenty  were  members  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church.  The  consciousness  of  separation  from  the 


86  Vol.  iii,  p.  53. 

87  Ibid.,  p.  57- 
S8Myles:  p.  227  fi. 

89  Ibid.,  p.  225ff. 

90  Trustees  of  Bristol :  Primitive  Methodism  Defended,  p.  5. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  163 

Church  was  present  in  the  reasonings  of  the  trustees.  They 
further  added:  "It  was  the  divine  will  we  should  be  auxiliaries 
to,  and  not  separatists  from  the  Established  Church.  Conse- 
quently, we  cannot  permit  the  ordinances  of  baptism  or  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  be  administered  among  us  by  our  own  preach- 
ers, nor  having  preachers  in  our  chapels  during  the  time  of 
divine  service  in  the  Church."91  The  trustees  did  not  want  fur- 
ther separation,  in  this  instance,  while  the  people  did. 

The  preachers,  and  those  who  believed  in  supporting  the 
powers  of  Conference,  and  who  were  not  overcareful  of  the  good 
will  of  the  Established  Church,  bitterly  attacked  the  trustees  of 
Bristol  for  putting  Moore  out  of  their  chapel.  Benjamin  Rhodes, 
a  Methodist  writer  of  the  times,  was  exceedingly  violent,  and 
in  his  attack  upon  these  trustees,  severely  handled  them.  His 
attack  was  upon  three  points : 

1.  Shall  trustees  in  the  Methodist  connection  place  and  dis- 

place preachers  at  their  pleasure?  or,  shall  they  not? 

2.  Shall  Methodist  preachers  aid  trustees  that  claim  such 

power?  or,  shall  they  not? 

3.  Shall  we  suffer  a  combination  of  trustees  and  others  to 

overturn  old  Methodism?  or,  shall  we  not?92 
Longridge  put  the  matter  strongly  by  saying:  "If  any  man  on 
account  of  his  property,  influence,  wisdom,  or  piety,  arrogate 
a  power  to  compel  the  consciences  of  others  in  their  duty  to 
God,  he  precisely  resembles  him  who  exalteth  himself  above  all 
that  is  called  God.  It  is  probable  that  our  brethren  are  not  aware 
of  these  consequences."  And  further,  he  stated  that  these  trus- 
tees used  the  same  principles  as  did  the  pope.93  All  of  Meth- 
odism was  aroused  over  this  question. 

After  Moore  was  ousted,  he  became  very  polemic  and 
attacked  the  trustees  in  a  pamphlet  entitled,  A  Reply  to  a  Pamph- 
let Entitled  Considerations  on  a  Separation  of  the  Methodists 
from  the  Established  Church.  Moore  said  that  in  practice  there 
had  been  separation  from  the  Church  in  the  societies  of  London 


"Ibid.,  p.  14. 

92  Rhodes :  The  Point  Stated,  p.  4. 

93  Conciliatory  Essay,  p.  21. 


i64    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

for  the  last  forty  years,  "yet  there  is  properly  no  separation 
from  the  Church  in  London — no  independent  Church  formed. 
Every  one  that  pleases  may,  as  in  Bristol,  attend  his  parish 
Church.  Meantime  the  Church  Service  is  read  every  Lord's  day, 
without  any  regard  to  any  other  worshiping  body  of  people. 
The  Lord's  Supper  is  administered  in  them  all."94  Moore  was 
clear-headed  enough  to  see  that  separation  was  a  fact,  not  a 
theory.  After  this  general  statement,  he  came  at  the  trustees 
with  the  following:  "That  men  professing  to  be  Methodists 
should  expel  a  preacher,  appointed  by  the  Conference,  from 
those  chapels,  against  the  mind  of  the  leaders,  stewards,  and 
people,  without  any  charge  preferred,  or  trial  of  any  kind,  taking 
counsel  only  with  their  attorney,  is  rather  new  in  the  religious 
world :  And  everyone  that  knows  what  Methodism  is,  must 
know  that  such  conduct  tends  to  its  dissolution."95 

The  trustees  were  not  inclined  to  be  conciliatory;  but  con- 
tinued their  demands  for  representation  in  the  Conference.  They 
were  put  off  with  good  words ;  but  their  agitations  brought  upon 
the  whole  connection  the  Plan  of  Pacification,  in  which  Con- 
ference gained  the  victory,  and  the  anti-separating  trustees  lost.96 
"The  result  of  the  struggle  was  most  salutary,  not  only  in  the 
restoration  of  harmony,  but,  if  possible,  more  so,  as  giving  a 
consolidated  government  to  Wesleyan  Methodism."97  Had  this 
attempt  of  the  trustees  to  set  aside  the  Deed  of  Declaration  suc- 
ceeded, "Methodist  societies  would  have  been  converted  into 
Independent  churches,"  and  the  whole  of  the  Methodist  plan 
would  have  fallen  through.98  But  this  attempt  came  to  nought. 

The  trustees  openly  claimed  to  support  the  conservative 
ideas  of  Methodism.99  In  fact,  they  were  so  ultra-conservative 
that  even  the  conservative  Conference  opposed  them.  Yet  it  is 
unique  that  these  ultra-conservatives  were  backed  up  in  their 
demands  by  the  radicals.  Alexander  Kilham  was  the  leader  of 
these  radicals.  As  early  as  1791  he  issued  a  circular  in  which 

94  Op.  dt.,  p.  5. 

95  H.  Moore :  Op.  cit.,  p.  8. 

96  Myles  :  p.  229. 

97  Stevens :  Op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  73. 

08 Jackson:  Cent,  of  Wes.  Meth.,  pp.  158-159. 
99  Trustees  of  Bristol :  Op.  cit.,  p.  14. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  165 

he  made  war  on  all  who  wished  to  remain  in  the  Church.  This 
came  out  just  before  Conference  time  and  made  a  stir.100  But 
the  Conference  took  no  notice  of  this  attack  and  appointed  him 
to  Newcastle,  where  he  found  the  societies  split  upon  the  sacra- 
mental question.  To  meet  the  situation,  Kilham  would  not  com- 
promise; but  published  a  pamphlet  in  which  he  advocated  that 
the  people  should  decide  as  they  saw  fit.  The  Conference  of 
1792  rebuked  him  for  his  "impolitic"  pamphlet.101  Kilham 
supported  the  trustees  in  so  far  as  they  were  in  the  opposition; 
but  his  principles  were  different  from  theirs.  He  did  not  wish 
the  power  of  Methodism  to  be  vested  in  the  Conference;  but 
neither  did  he  wish  it  to  be  vested  in  the  trustees.  He  was  a 
thoroughgoing  democrat,  and  wished  the  power  to  be  vested 
in  the  people.  The  people,  not  the  Conference,  should  control. 
For  advocating  this,  he  was  expelled  from  Methodism  in  1796, 
after  a  regular  trial.102  Kilham  was  antagonistic;  he  had  spoken 
of  a  ruling  of  Conference  as  a  "Methodist  Bull,"  and  such 
speech  was  not  quieting  to  people  who  still  remembered  a  cer- 
tain Bishop  Lavington.103  Kilham  was  also  quite  opposed  to 
the  compromising  attitude  of  Conference  in  respect  to  the  sacra- 
ment. He  said  that  Conference  was  inconsistent  in  permitting 
it  to  be  administered  in  some  places,  while  forbidding  it  in  others. 
This  was  "priestly  domination." 

The  minority  of  the  people  demanded  equal  lay  representa- 
tion in  the  Conference,  and  even  brought  in  a  plan  for  such 
equality  at  the  district  and  quarterly  meetings.  In  1797  all  of 
these  plans  were  vetoed  by  the  Conference,  and  these  people 
felt  obliged  to  form  the  New  Connection™*  Stephen  Evers- 
field  and  William  Thorn  refused  to  sign  a  declaration  of  Confer- 
ence in  1797,  and  were  forced  to  go  along  with  Kilham.105  Thus 
Kilham  with  his  refusal  to  compromise,  with  his  definite  program, 
with  his  truly  democratic  ideas,  was  forced  out.  Wesleyan 
Methodism  could  ill  afford  to  lose  this  democratic  force  thus 


100  Stevens :  vol.  iii,  p.  32. 

101  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  40. 

102  Myles  :  p.  235. 

103  Stevens:  vol.  iii,  p.  65. 

104  Apology  for  the  New  Connection,  pp.  10  and  14. 
105Myles:  p.  242. 


1 66    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

represented  within  the  number  of  her  members.  But  by  this 
opposition,  those  who  wished  the  people  to  control,  compelled 
the  Conference  to  become  more  definite,  and  less  compromising. 
Conference  was  compelled  to  step  down  from  the  fence,  even 
though  so  doing  meant  further  estrangement  from  the  Estab- 
lished Church. 

Thus  far,  we  have  seen  the  struggle  over  the  sacrament,  in 
which  Conference  sought  to  compromise,  and  the  struggle  with 
trusteeism,  which  has  not  at  this  point  been  settled.  By  antici- 
pation we  have  seen  the  advocates  for  a  broader  democracy  lose 
their  fight  while  a  conservative,  compromising  Conference  still 
held  sway.  But  this  sway  was  over  a  shaky  type  of  Methodism. 
It  was  a  Methodism  made  of  individuals,  both  solicitous  and 
careless  regarding  the  Church.  Those  careless  about  the  Church 
were  constantly  increasing.  Faction  was  spread.  Methodism 
divided  against  herself  could  not  survive.  We  must  now  con- 
sider the  method  adopted  to  reconcile  the  warring  factions  and 
unite  Methodism,  though  completing  the  rupture  with  the  Estab- 
lished Church. 

SECTION  VII.  PLAN  OF  PACIFICATION  AND  REGULATIONS  OF 

LEEDS 

The  leaders  of  Methodism  at  last  became  thoroughly  aroused 
to  the  dangers  of  the  situation.106  Moore,  the  advocate  of  the 
power  of  Conference,  and  Bradburn,  who  was  inclined  to  favor 
the  trustees,  met  at  the  breakfast  table  of  Benson,  a  prominent 
leader.  Here  Thomas  Coke  visited  them.  They  made  mutual 
concessions  and  the  resulting  document  was  afterward  called 
The  Plan  of  Pacification.™1 

This  "plan"  dealt  first  with  the  sacrament.  The  sacrament 
was  not  to  be  administered  in  any  chapel  unless  the  trustees, 
stewards,  and  leaders,  as  representatives  of  the  people,  favored 
the  use  of  it  by  a  majority.  If  there  was  not  a  chapel,  then  the 
decision  rested  with  the  leaders  and  stewards.108  This  same 
method  was  to  be  used  in  ascertaining  whether  or  not  the  people 

106  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  321  ff. 

107  Stevens:  vol.  in,  p.  58. 

108  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  322. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  167 

wished  service  in  Church  hours,  or  their  preachers  to  baptize  or 
bury  their  dead.  The  Lord's  Supper  could  not,  however,  be 
withdrawn  from  the  people  when  once  it  had  been  granted  to 
them.  And  none  but  preachers  appointed  by  the  Conference 
could  so  administer  the  sacrament.  To  appease  those  who  were 
against  separation,  the  "plan"  provided  that  the  Lord's  Supper 
should  be  celebrated  only  according  to  the  rite  of  the  Established 
Church.  And  furthermore,  to  see  that  this  question  was  settled 
once  and  for  all,  the  "plan"  concluded  by  ordering:  that  if  any 
local  preacher,  steward,  or  leader  should  disturb  the  peace  of 
any  society  by  advocating  or  objecting  to  the  use  of  the.  sacra- 
ment, he  should  be  tried,  and  if  found  guilty,  expelled  from 
Methodism.109 

This  plan  was  in  a  sense  a  compromise;  but  yet  it  did 
actually  and  officially  indorse :  the  services  out  of  Church  hours ; 
the  administration  of  the  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  and 
most  important  of  all,  it  distinctly  provided  against  the  returning 
to  the  old  order.  If  the  people  of  any  vicinity  once  chose  to 
offend  the  Established  Church,  Methodism  gave  them  no  way 
of  avoiding  the  giving  of  this  offense  a  second  time.  This 
was  actual  separation. 

The  "plan"  also  dealt  with  the  question  of  trusteeism.  It 
said :  "The  appointment  of  preachers  shall  remain  solely  with 
the  Conference;  and  no  trustee,  or  number  of  trustees,  shall 
expel  or  exclude  from  their  chapel  or  chapels,  any  preachers  sa 
appointed."110  Trustees  could  not  control  Methodism.  A  way, 
nevertheless,  was  provided,  so  that  any  preacher  inefficient,  or 
immoral,  could  be  temporarily  removed  until  Conference  should 
meet  and  investigate  the  preacher  in  question.  But  the  control 
of  the  preachers  rested  with  the  Conference  and  the  "plan" 
distinctly  said  that  if  the  trustees  expelled  any  preacher  of  their 
own  separate  authority,  the  Conference  after  proving  such  a  fact, 
would  expel  the  offending  trustees  from  Methodism  and  use  their 
chapel  no  more,  but  build  a  new  one.111  In  this  way,  the  power 


109  Ibid.,  p.  325- 
™Ibid.,  p.  323- 
111 /«<*.,  p.  324- 


i68    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

of  the  trustees  was  denied,  and  the  power  of  the  Conference  to 
conduct  the  affairs  of  Methodism  vindicated. 

The  Plan  of  Pacification  was  adopted  by  the  Conference 
of  1795.  The  trustees  in  a  letter  to  Conference  agreed  to  abide 
"cheerfully"  by  the  decision  of  the  Conference  in  this  matter. 
Thus  was  the  strife  between  the  trustees  and  the  Conference 
settled,  while  unity  again  came  to  its  own  in  Methodism,  leaving 
Conference  as  the  victorious  party.  The  matter  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  thus  settled  in  such  a  way  as  forbade  any  true 
harmony  between  the  Methodists  and  the  Established  Church. 
When  Conference  adopted  the  Plan  of  Pacification,  it  did  away 
with  any  pretense  of  subserviency  to  the  wishes  of  the  clergy 
and  the  Established  Church. 

In  this  was  the  "plan"  a  real  pacification  between  the  con- 
servative and  the  ultra-conservative  party.  But  what  of  the 
radical  party  represented  by  Kilham  and  his  followers?  This 
"plan"  made  no  attempt  to  make  peace  with  the  radical  party, 
but  rather,  it  ignored  the  radicals  when  they  protested,  and  then 
drove  them  out  of  the  connection.  Democracy,  as  we  understand 
it,  was  not  present  in  this  "plan."  It  was  purely  a  victory  for  the 
Conference  as  over  against  the  trustees  on  the  one  hand,  and 
those  who  wished  the  people  to  rule,  on  the  other.  Methodism 
would  have  done  a  far  wiser  thing,  had  she  kept  the  radical  party 
within  her  fold. 

After  the  adoption  of  the  Plan  of  Pacification,  others,  be- 
sides Alexander  Kilham  and  his  radicals,  still  troubled  the  Con- 
ference. There  was  much  uneasiness  among  the  Methodists. 
Kilham  still  demanded  lay-representation;  but  it  was  felt  that 
this  was  not  adapted  for  so  large  a  body,  and  that  it  would 
incapacitate  the  Conference.112  When,  in  1797,  this  was  refused, 
the  radicals  left  the  Wesleyan  Methodists  and  formed  the  Meth- 
odist New  Connection.  The  Conference  feared  that  many  more 
might  leave  and  follow  Kilham.  For  this  reason,  it  was  com- 
pelled to  modify  somewhat  its  independent  attitude,  and  outline 
its  powers  and  purposes.113  The  Lord's  Supper,  baptism,  and 


112  Apology  for  the  New  Connection,  part  iii. 

113  Myles  :  p.  243. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  169 

ordination  were  to  continue,  the  new  Church  was  not  to  be  for- 
saken, but  Conference  was  to  be  more  conciliatory.  These  modi- 
fications were  called  The  Regulations  of  Leeds.  The  need  for 
these  regulations  shows  the  lack  of  complete  harmony  among 
the  Methodists. 

Many  of  the  older  men  signed  The  Regulations  of  Leeds. 
To  offset  the  accusations  that  the  old  men  in  the  form  of  a 
party  machine  were  controlling  Conference,  the  younger  men  put 
forth  a  statement  asserting  their  satisfaction  with  the  state  of 
affairs  and  their  desire  to  stay  in  the  connection,  insisting  that 
no  ecclesiastical  aristocracy  existed.114  This  would  seem  to  show 
that  within  the  Conference  itself  harmony  and  peace  was  on  the 
increase.  The  adoption  of  these  regulations  did  away  with  most 
of  the  uneasiness  within  Methodism. 

Methodism  was  now,  after  all  of  this  controversy,  more  of 
a  unit  than  it  was  before  Wesley's  death.  Its  internal  strife 
had  eliminated  all  who  would  cause  defection.  Only  loyal  and 
more  or  less  satisfied  members  remained  within  its  ranks.  But 
as  a  result  of  this  strife,  it  was  no  longer  an  integral  part  of  the 
Church  of  England.  That  movement,  which  had  begun  early 
to  develop  an  organization  for  furthering  certain  doctrines  and 
practices,  now  was  more  solid  than  ever  in  advocating  even  more 
distinct  practices.  In  spite  of  strife,  Methodism  emerged  claim- 
ing and  practicing  the  right  to  ordain,  bury  the  dead,  and  adminis- 
ter the  sacraments  within  its  own  organization.  It  did  not 
now  claim,  as  when  Wesley  was  alive,  that  it  was  a  part  of  the 
Established  Church.  It  knew  differently.  The  Established 
Church  had  failed  to  take  advantage  of  a  movement  that  comes 
extremely  rarely  to  any  institution.  It  had  opposed,  and  neglected 
Methodism,  and  done  so  to  its  own  hurt. 

Methodism  realized  that  it  was  an  independent  entity.  It 
laid  down  rules  for  its  dissatisfied  members.115  It  strongly  urged 
the  purchasing  of  land  upon  which  to  build  its  chapels.116  It 
established  its  preachers'  fund  upon  a  more  substantial  and  more 


114  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  36off. 

™Ibid.,  pp.  346-347. 

116  Warren :  Op.  cit.,  p.  260. 


1 70    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

workable  basis.117  And  in  1808,  its  Conference  openly  sought 
to  fix  its  doctrines;  and  adopted  and  established  the  Twenty-five 
Articles  of  Religion.118  It  actually  was  an  independent  Church. 
"Any  organization  organized  for  carrying  on  a  particular  ac- 
tivity, or  for  achieving  some  special  social  end,  is  a  constituent 
society/'119  Sociologically,  Methodism  had  fulfilled  all  the  re- 
quirements of  this  definition.  She  was  fully  organized.  Her 
social  end  was  clearly  outlined  in  her  doctrines,  Articles  of  Reli- 
gion, and  elsewhere.  This  was  a  constituent  society.  Opposition 
met  within  herself  and  without,  had  transformed  her  "conscious- 
ness of  kind"  into  the  more  solid  and  distinct  realization  that 
she  was  an  independent  society — and  therefore  no  part  of  the 
Established  Church. 


117  Myles  :  p.  221. 

118  W.  H.  S.  Publications,  No.  2,  1897. 


Giddings :  Op.  cit.,  p.  501. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  171 


CONCLUSION 

THE  separation  of  the  Methodists  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  a  real  separation.  The  large  majority  of  the  Method- 
ists, in  the  beginning,  were  members  of  the  Church  of  England. 
To  be  sure,  there  were  some  Dissenters  among  their  numbers; 
but  in  most  localities  they  constituted  a  very  small  proportion  of 
the  whole.  The  authorities  upon  the  history  of  Dissent,  say 
almost  nothing  about  the  numbers  of  Dissenters  who  joined  the 
Methodist  movement,  indicating  that  the  number  was  small 
enough  to  be  quite  ignored.1  Without  any  proof,  one  is  con- 
servative in  estimating  that  less  than  one  tenth  of  the  Methodists 
came  out  of  the  ranks  of  the  Dissenters.  Primarily,  Methodism 
was  not  a  movement  among  Dissenters. 

Wesley  ever  claimed  to  be  a  good  Churchman  and  that  his 
societies  were  composed  of  members  of  the  Church.  "We  are 
not  Dissenters  in  the  only  way  our  law  allows,  namely,  those  who 
renounce  the  service  of  the  Church.  We  do  not,  dare  not  separ- 
ate from  it  ...  What  they  do  in  America,  or  what  their 
minutes  say  on  that  subject,  is  nothing  to  us.  We  will  keep  in 
the  good  old  way."  2  Professor  Faulkner,  nevertheless  quite 
correctly  says:  "But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Wesley  had  in  effect 
separated  himself  from  the  Church."  3  To  be  sure,  the  Meth- 
odists would  not  take  advantage  of  the  Act  of  Toleration.4  But 
this  refusal  was  not  due  to  a  loyal  desire  to  adhere  to  the  Church, 
and  John  Free  objected  to  them  on  this  very  score,  that  they  were 
in  reality  Dissenters,  and  yet  refused  to  register  themselves  as 
such.5 

The  Church  too,  considered  the  Methodists  in  their  early 
days  as  a  part  of  itself.  Bishop  Gibson  objected  to  the  whole 
of  the  Methodist  organization,  categorically  taking  up  each  point, 


1  Vide  Waddington,  Ivimey,  Bouge  and  Bennett,  Wilson. 

2  Works,  Large  Minutes,  vol.  v,  p.  227. 

3  Papers  of  Am.  Spc.  of  Ch.  Hist.,  ist  series,  vol.  viii,  1897,  p.  175. 
*Tyerman:  vol.  iii,  pp.  512-513. 

8  Sermon  of  1758. 


172    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

such  as :  exhorters,  bands,  societies,  and  denied  that  they  were 
legal  or  warranted  in  the  law.  Such  criticism  would  not  apply 
to  out-and-out  Dissenters.  Thus  both  Wesley  and  Churchmen 
in  the  early  days  considered  the  Methodists  as  part  of  the  Church. 

Wesley's  idea,  however,  was  to  found  a  society  within  the 
Church  of  England  with  rules,  organization,  and  discipline  and 
even  in  a  sense,  a  doctrinal  emphasis  all  its  own.  According  to 
the  law  there  could  be  no  such  society,  for  the  parish  was  the 
unit,  and  all  such  bodies  made  a  church  within  a  church.  This 
was  schismatical  from  the  standpoint  of  legalism.  The  attitude 
of  Bishop  Gibson  was  the  purely  legal  one.  If  a  Churchman 
built  a  meeting  house,  he  defied  the  law  and  the  only  way  of 
legalizing  such  a  meeting  house  was  to  declare  it  a  chapel  under 
the  Toleration  Act.  One  could  not  be  a  Churchman  with  a  pri- 
vate conventicle  such  as  the  Methodists  habitually  held.  To  per- 
sist in  this  line  was  to  be  a  Dissenter.  The  Churchmen  were 
quite  independent,  sadly  shortsighted,  shamefully  illiberal;  but 
their  position  was  legal.  When  the  spirit  of  Methodism  broke 
with  the  spirit  of  legalism  within  the  Church,  Methodists  became 
Dissenters. 

"The  question  of  the  separation  of  the  Methodists  from 
the  Church  of  England  was  a  question  in  perpetual  discussion  in 
the  Conferences  from  the  first  Conference  almost  to  the  close  of 
Wesley's  life."  6  This  showed  a  growing  antipathy  toward  the 
Church.  Some  of  the  preachers  wished  for  a  separation  and 
worked  hard  for  it.7  Wesley  maintained  the  upper  hand  and 
kept  these  in  the  Church.8  Had  the  Methodists  considered  them- 
selves not  members  of  the  Church,  and  had  their  enemies  con- 
sidered them  not  to  be  members  of  the  Church,  then  there  would 
never  have  been  this  discussion.  One  is  safe  in  thinking  that  a 
large  majority  of  the  Methodists  were  members  of  the  Church 
of  England  when  Wesley  died.  After  the  terms  of  the  Plan  of 
Pacification  and  The  Regulations  of  Leeds  went  into  effect,  one 
is  not  correct  in  thinking  that  either  temperamentally  or  sociolog- 


6  Faulkner :  Op.  cit.,  p.  174. 

7  Charles  Wesley :  Journal,  vol.  ii,  p.  134. 

*Jour.,  vol.  vii,  p.  192  and  vol.  vi,  p.  203,  vol.  iv,  pp.  186  and  422. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  173 

ically  the  Methodists  were  part  of  the  Established  Church.  There 
was,  to  be  sure,  no  formal  declaration  of  the  severance  of  rela- 
tionships with  the  Established  Church ;  but  the  separation  was  an 
accomplished  fact. 

When  the  discipline  of  the  parent  church  was  defied,  and 
when  an  admirable  and  distinct  organization  was  formed,  the 
destiny  of  the  Methodists  was  to  separate.9  If  Wesley  and  his 
followers  had  not  been  thrust  out  of  the  Church,  the  very  spirit 
and  power  of  their  movement,  the  nature  of  the  work  to  be  done, 
the  somewhat  unusual  methods  which  they  were  compelled  to 
adopt  for  its  accomplishment  would  have  taken  them  out.  They 
were  of  the  Church  neither  by  adoption  nor  by  spirit.10  But  this 
separation  was  not  in  vain,  for  the  movement  contributed  more 
to  the  reviving  of  religion  among  the  lower  classes  of  England 
than  any  other  since  the  days  of  the  Friars,  while  up  to  the 
present  it  has  carried,  as  widely  as  Christianity  is  known,  its 
message  for  the  moral  transformation  of  the  individual  and  for 
the  reformation  of  society. 


Cf.  W.  E.  H.  Lecky:  Op.  tit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  688. 
0  Vide,  Fitchett :  p.  180. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

LIBRARIES  CONSULTED 

Columbia  University  Library. 

Drew  Theological  Seminary  Library  has  many  good  secondary  works,  many 

pamphlets,  and  contains   the  Tyerman   Collection   which  is   rich  in   the 

material  of  Methodism  for  the  i8th  century. 
General   Theological    Seminary  Library  holds   many   Methodist  works;   but 

is  especially  rich  in  about  150  volumes  of  anti-Methodistical  publications 

known  as  the  Cavender  Collection. 
Union  Theological   Seminary  Library  contains  helps  to  bibliography,  many 

periodicals,  biographies,  pamphlets,  and  secondary  works. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  HELPS 

Archbald,  F.  A.    Methodism  and  Literature.    Cincinnati,  1883. 
Brown,    William.     Wesleyan    Methodism — a   catalogue   of    books.     London, 

(after   1826). 
Cavender,    Curtis    H.      Catalogue    of    Work    in    Refutation    of    Methodism, 

from  its  Origin,  1729  to  the  Present  Time.     .     .     .     New  York,   1868. 

2nd  ed. 

Green,  Richard.     Anti-Methodist  Publications  Issued  During  the  i8th  Cen- 
tury.    London,  1902. 
Green,  Richard.    The  Works  of  John  and  Charles  Wesley.    A  Bibliography. 

London,  1906. 
Jackson,  Francis  M.     Index  to  Library  Edition  to  Thomas  Jackson's  Life 

of   Charles  Wesley.     1899. 

Lee,  Sidney.  Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  New  York,  1897. 
Lloyd,  F.  E.  J.  American  Church  Directory.  Uniontown,  Pa.,  1905. 
Osborn,  G.  Articles  of  Wesleyan  Bibliography;  or  a  Record  of  Methodist 

Literature.     London,  1869. 
Townsend,   William  John,  Workman,   H.   B.  and   Eayrs,   George.     A   New 

History  of  Methodism.     London,  1909. 

SECONDARY  WORKS 

Abbey,  C.  J.    The  English  Church  in  the  i8th  Century.    London,  1878.    2  vols. 

Banfield,  Frank.    John  Wesley.     Boston,  1900. 

Barr,  Josiah  Henry.    Early  Methodists  under  Persecution.    New  York,  1916. 

Bogue,  David  and  Bennett,  James.  History  of  Dissenters  from  the  Restora- 
tion. London,  1809.  4  vols. 

Burckhardt,  J.  G.  Vollstandige  Geschichte  der  Methodisten  in  England  aus 
glaubwurdigen  Quellen.  Niirnberg,  1895. 

Cadman,  S.  Parkes.  The  Three  Religious  Leaders  of  Oxford.  ...  New 
York,  1916. 

Corrie,  G.  E.     Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England.     Cambridge,  1850. 

Davenport,  F.  M.     Primitive  Traits  in  Religious  Revivals.     New  York,  1905. 

Davis,  C.  H.    The  English  Church  Canons  of  1604.    .    .    .    London,  1869. 

Faulkner,  John  Alfred.     The  Methodists.     New  York,  1903. 

Faulkner,  John  Alfred.  Wesley  as  a  Churchman.  American  Society  of 
Church  History.  Papers,  1897.  Vol.  viii,  pp.  163-178. 

Fitchett,  W.  H.     Wesley  and  His  Century.     London,  1906. 

Gee  and  Hardy.  Documents  Illustrative  of  English  Church  History.  Lon- 
don, 1914. 

Giddings,  Franklin  H.  Readings  in  Descriptive  and  Historical  Sociology. 
New  York,  1911. 

Ivimey,  Joseph.    History  of  English  Baptists.    London,  1814.    Vols.  n  and  111. 

Jacoby,  L.  S.  Geschichte  des  Methodismus,  seiner  Entstehung  und  Ausbrei- 
tung.  Bremen,  1870.  2  vols. 


176    THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.    History  of  England  in  the  i8th  Century.    1878-1890.    6  vols. 

Leger,  Augustine.     La  Jeunesse  de  Wesley.     Paris,  1910. 

Lelievre,  M.    J.  Wesley,  sa  Vie  et  son  Ouvre.    Paris,  1868. 

(Anon.)     Life  and  Times  of  Selina,  Countess  of  Huntingdon  by  a  Member 

of  the  House  of  Shirley  and  Hastings.     London,  1839-40.    2  vols. 
McGiffert,  A.   C.     Origin  of   High-Church   Episcopacy.     In   The  American 

Journal  of  Theology.     1902.     Pp.  417-438. 

Mason,  A.  J.    The  Church  of  England  and  the  Episcopacy.    Cambridge,  1914. 
North,  E.  M.     Early  Methodist  Philanthropy.     New  York,  1914. 
Overton,  John  Henry.    The  Church  in  England.     London,  1897.    2  vols. 
Overton,  John  Henry.     Church  of  England  from   1714-1800.     (S.L.)      1906. 
Overton,  John  Henry.     The  English  Church  in  the  I9th  Century.     London, 

1894. 

Overton,  John  Henry.  The  Evangelical  Revival  in  the  i8th  Century.  Lon- 
don, 1886. 

Overton,  John  Henry.    John  Wesley.    New  York,  1891. 

Perry,  Cannon.    History  of  the  Church  of  England.    London,  1861.    3  vols. 
Simon,  J.   S.     The  Revival   of   Religion   in   England   in   the   i8th   Century. 

London,  1911. 

Smith,  George.     History  of  Wesleyan  Methodism.     London,  1858-61.  3  vols. 
Stevens,  Abel.     The  History  of  the  Movement  of  the  i8th  Century  Called 

Methodism.     New  York,  1858.    4  vols. 

Stevens,  Abel.    Life  and  Times  of  Nathan  Bangs.    New  York,  1863. 
Stevens,  Abel.     Memorials  of  the  Early  Progress  of  Methodism.     Boston, 

1852. 
Telford,  John.    History  of  Lay  Preaching  in  the  Christian  Church.    London, 

1897. 

Tyerman,  Luke.    Life  and  Times  of  John  Wesley.    New  York,  1870.    3  vols. 
Tyerman,  Luke.    Life,  Letters  and  Literary  Labors  of  John  William  Fletcher. 

New  York,  1883. 

Waddington,  John.     Congregational  History.     London,  1876. 
Walcott,  Mackenzie  E.  C.     The  Constitutions  and  Canons  Ecclesiastical  of 

the  Church  of  England.     London,  1874. 
Wesleyan    Studies   by   Various   Writers.     With   unpublished   letters,    diaries 

and  journals.     London,  1903. 
Workman,  Herbert  Brook.     Methodism.     Cambridge,  1912. 

PRIMARY  WORKS 

Atmore,  Charles.     Methodist  Memorial.     Bristol,  1801. 

Benham,  D.    Memoirs  of  J.  Hutton.    London,  1856. 

Butler,  Joseph.    The  Analogy  of  Religion.    .    .    .    London,  1736. 

Clarke,  Adam.    Memoires  of  Wesley  Family.    .     .     .    New  York,  1824. 

Cooke,  Joseph.  Methodism  Condemned.  .  .  .  Two  Sermons  on  Justifica- 
tion by  Faith  and  the  Witness  of  the  Spirit.  Rochdale,  1807. 

Crowther,  Jonothan.  A  True  and  Complete  Portraiture  of  Methodism  or 
the  History  of  the  Wesleyan  Methodists.  .  .  .  New  York,  1813. 

(Foster,  J.  K.)  Life  and  Times  of  Selina,  Countess  of  Huntingdon.  London, 
1844.  2  vols. 

Gillies,  John.     Memoirs  of  George  Whitefield.     New  Haven,  1834. 

Green,  Thomas.    A  Dissertation  on  Enthusiasm.    .    .    .    London,  1855. 

Hampson,  John.  Memoirs  of  the  Late  John  Wesley.  .  .  .  Sunderland, 
1791-  3  vols. 

Jackson,  Thomas.     The  Centenary  of  Wesleyan  Methodism.     1839. 

Jackson,  Thomas.  John  Wesley's  Prose  Works.  .  .  .  Bristol,  1771-74.  32 
vols. 

Jackson,  Thomas.    Life  of  the  Rev.  Charles  Wesley,  M.A.    New  York,  1844. 

Law,  William.    Works.    London,  1892.    9  vols. 

Meacham,  A.  G.  A  Compendious  History  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the 
Methodist  Church.  1835. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  177 

Moore,  Rev.  Henry.    Life  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley.    New  York,  1824.    2  vols. 

Myles,  William.  A  Chronological  History  of  the  People  Called  Methodists. 
London,  1813. 

Nightingale,  J.  .  .  .  View  of  the  Rise,  Progress,  etc.,  of  the  Wesleyan 
Methodists.  London,  1807. 

Outram,  Edmund.     Sermons  and  Extracts.     Cambridge,   1809. 

Porteus,  Beilby.  A  Review  of  the  Life  and  Character  of  Archbishop  Seeker. 
New  York,  1773. 

Porteus,  Beilby.    Works.    London,  1811.    6  vols. 

Roberts,  W.    Memoirs  of  Hannah  More.     1836. 

Southey,  Robert.  The  Life  of  Wesley;  and  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  Meth- 
odism. .  .  .  New  York,  1847.  2  vols.  2nd  American  ed. 

Stevens,  Abel.    The  Centenary  of  American  Methodism.    New  York,  1866. 

Taylor,  John.  The  Scripture-Doctrine  of  Original  Sin  Proposed  to  Free  and 
Candid  Examination  to  which  is  Added  a  Supplement.  London,  1750. 

Thompson,  H.    Life  of  Hannah  More.    London,  1836,    4  vols. 

Webb,  John.  An  Appeal  to  the  Honest  and  Sincere  Hearted  Among  the 
People  Called  Methodists  and  Quakers.  London,  1753. 

Wesley,  Charles.     Journal.     London,  1849.     2  vols. 

Wesley,  Charles.    The  Journal  of  the  Rev.  Charles  Wesley.    New  York,  1909. 

Wesley,  Charles.    Life.     New  York,  1820.    2  vols. 

Whitefield,  George.     Collection  of  Letters.     London,  1772.    3  vols. 

Whitefield,  George.    Journal.     London,  1739-41.     7  vols. 

Whitefield,  George.  Whitefield's  Journals.  To  which  is  Prefixed  his  "Short 
Account"  and  "Further  Account."  London,  1905. 

Whitehead,  John.  Life  of  John  Wesley  to  which  is  Prefixed  Some  Account 
of  His  Ancestors  together  with  the  Life  of  Charles  Wesley.  Dublin,  1805. 

Wilberforce,  Samuel.  History  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Amer- 
ica. London,  1844. 

Wilberforce,  William.     A  View  of  the  Prevailing  Religious  System.     1797. 

Wilson,   (Bishop)   Maxims  of  Piety  and  Christianity.     1781. 

Wilson,  Walter.  History  and  Antiquities  of  Dissenting  Churches.  1804-14. 
4  vols. 

Woodward,  Dr.  Josiah.  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Religious 
Societies  in  the  City  of  London.  .  .  .  London,  1698. 

PERIODICALS 
American  Society  of  Church  History.     Papers.    Vols.  7  and  8.     New  York, 

1895-1897. 
The  Arminian  Magazine.     London,  1779-        .     The  name  later  changed  to 

Methodist  Magazine. 
Bennett,  John.     Minutes  of  the  Conferences  of  1744,  1745,   1747,  and  1748. 

In  the  Publications  of  the  Wesleyan  Historical  Society  for  1896. 
Gentlemen's  Magazine.     London,  1747-1752. 

Methodist  Magazine.    1778-1821.    Begun  as  Arminian  Magazine,  1778-91,  con- 
tinued as  the  Wesleyan  Magazine,  1822- 
Minutes  of   the  Annual    Conferences   of   the   Methodist   Episcopal   Church. 

New  York,  1840.    Vol.  i.     1773-1828. 
Minutes    of    the    Methodist    Conferences.     London,    1812.      Vol.    i,    1744-98. 

1813.     Vol.  ii,   1799-1806. 

Minutes  of  Methodist  Conferences.    Philadelphia,  1795. 
Minutes  of  Several  Conversations  between  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley  and  Others. 

1744-1789.    Works.    Vol.  v,  pp.  211-239. 
Minutes  of  Several  Conversations  between  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley  and  Chas. 

Wesley  and  Others.     From  the  Year  1744  to  the  Year  1780.     London, 

S.D. 
Minutes  of  Some  Late  Conversations  between  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Wesley  and 

Others.     1744-1747  inclusive.     Works.     Vol.  v,  pp.  194-211. 
Watchman's  Lantern.     Being  a  Series  of   Papers   Intended  to  Throw  Light 

on    the    Proceedings    of    the   Wesleyan    Methodist    Conference,   and    its 


178     THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Representatives.     Liverpool,    1835.      Contains    the   Constitution    of    1795 

and  1797. 
Wesleyan  Historical  Society.    Proceedings.    London,  1897-          .    Printed  for 

the  Society.    9  vols. 
Wesleyan  Historical  Society.     Publications.     London,  1897. 

PAMPHLETS 

(Anon.)     Address  to  the  Members  and  Friends  of  the  Methodist  Society  in 

Newcastle.     S.  L.     1792. 

(Anon).    An  Apology  for  the  Methodists  of  the  New  Connection.    S.  L.    1815. 
Bate,  James.    Methodism  Displayed.    .    .    .    London,  1739. 
(Beard,  John  Reilly.)     Rise,  Progress  and  Present  Influence  of  Methodism. 

London,  1831. 
Beilby,  Lord  Bishop  of  Chester.    A  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of 

Chester.    1781. 
Benson,  Joseph.    A  Defense  of  the  Methodists  in  Five  Letters  Addressed  to 

Rev.  Dr.  Tatham.    London,  1794.    3rd  ed. 
(Berridge,  J.)     Justification  by  Faith  Alone.     London,  1758. 
Bickerstaff,   Isaac.     The   Hypocrite,   a   Comedy.     Philadelphia,    1826.     Pub- 
lished first  in  England  in  1768. 
(Lavington,  George.)     The  Bishop  of  Exeter's  Answer  to  Mr.  John  Wesley's 

Later  Letter  to  his  Lordship.     London,  1752. 
Boehm,  Anthony  William.     The   Doctrine  of   Justification   Set  Forth   in   a 

Sermon.    .    .    .    London,  1714. 
Bradburn,  Samuel.    Methodism  Set  Forth  and  Defended  in  a  Sermon.    .    .    . 

Bristol,  1792. 

Bradburn,  Samuel.    The  Question,  Are  Methodists  Dissenters?     S.  L.    1792. 
Collins,  B.  B.    An  Address  to  the  Higher  Ranks  of  People  in  the  Parish  of 

St.  Mary,  Hull.     Leeds,  1779.     3rd  ed. 
Coke,   Thomas.     An   Address   to   the  Inhabitants   of   Birstal   and  Adjacent 

Villages.     Leeds,  1782. 
Coke,  Thomas.    A  Letter  to  the  Author  of  Strictures  on  Dr.  Coke's  Sermon. 

.    .    .    London,  1786. 
Coke,  Thomas.     The  Substance  of  a  Sermon  Preached  at  Baltimore  before 

the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  at  the  Ordi- 
nation of  the  Rev.  Francis  Asbury  to  the  Office  of  a   Superintendent. 

London,  1785. 

Coventry,  Henry.     Philemon  and  Hydaspes.     London,  1786. 
Crowther,  Jonothan.  The  Crisis  of  Methodism.    .    .    .    Bristol,  1795. 
Crowther,  Jonothan.     Christian  Order:  or,  Liberty  without  Anarchy.    .     .    . 

Bristol,  1796. 
(Anon.)     Deism  Genuine  anti-Methodism  or,  The  Present  Increase  of  Deism. 

.    .    .    by  a  Woman.     S.  L.     1751. 
(Anon.)     The  Doctrinal  of  Original  Sin.     Extracted  from  a  Late  Author. 

London,  1784. 

Downes,  John.    Methodism  Examined  and  Exposed.    .    .    .    London,  1759. 
(Anon.)     An  Essay  on  the  Character  of  Methodism.     Cambridge,  1781. 
Evan,  Caleb.     A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Wesley;   Occasioned  by  his 

Calm  Address  to  the  American  Colonies.    London,  1775. 
(Evans,  Theophilus.)      The   History  of   Enthusiasm   from   the   Reformation 

to  the  Present  Time.    London,  1757. 
Fletcher,  John  William.     An  Appeal  to  the  Matter  of  Fact  and  Common 

Sense.     Or  a   Rational   Demonstration   of   Man's   Lost   Estate.     .     .     . 

Philadelphia,  1794. 
Fletcher,  John  William.    Checks  to  Antinomianism  in  a  Series  of  Letters  to 

the  Rev.  Mr.  Shirley  and  Mr.  Hill.     New  York,  1771-1774.    2  vols. 
Fletcher,  J.  W.    Vindication  of    ...   Wesley's  "Calm  Address  to  our  Amer- 
ican Colonies"  in  Some  Letters  to  Caleb  Evans.    .     .     .    London,  S.D. 
Fletcher,  John  William.    A  Vindication  of  Mr.  Wesley's  Last  Minutes    .    .    . 

as  a  Dreadful  Heresy.     Bristol,  1771. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  179 

Free,  John.  Controversy  with  the  People  Called  Methodists.  .  .  .  London, 
1760. 

Free,  John.    Rules  for  the  Discovery  of  False  Prophets.    .    .    .    London,  1759. 

Free,  John.  Sermon  Preached  before  the  University  at  St.  Mary's  in  Oxford. 
.  .  .  London,  1758. 

Free,  John.  Whole  Speech.  .  .  .  Delivered  to  the  Rev.  Clergy  of  the  Great 
City  of  London.  London,  (1759). 

Gill,  John.  The  Doctrine  of  Predestination  Stated  .  .  .  ;  in  Opposition  to 
Mr.  Wesley's  Predestination  Calmly  Considered.  .  .  .  London,  1752. 

Gibson,  Edmund.  The  Bishop  of  London's  Pastoral  Letter  to  the  People  of 
his  Diocese  ...  by  Way  of  Caution  against  Lukewarmness  on  the 
One  Hand,  and  Enthusiasm  on  the  Other.  London,  1739. 

Gibson,  Edmund.  Caution  against  Enthusiasm,  being  the  Second  Part  of  the 
Bishop  of  London's  4th  Pastoral  Letter.  London,  1801. 

(Gibson,  Edmund.)    An  Earnest  Appeal  to  the  Public.    .    .    .    London,  1739. 

(Gibson,  Edmund.)  Observations  upon  the  Conduct  and  Behaviour  of  a 
Certain  Sect  Usually  Distinguished  by  the  Name  of  Methodists.  Lon- 
don, 1744. 

(Green,  John.)  .  The  Principles  of  a  Methodist  Farther  Considered  in  a 
Letter  to  Rev.  Mr.  George  Whitefield.  Cambridge,  1761. 

(Grey,  Zachary.)  A  Serious  Address  to  Lay-Methodists  to  Beware  of  the 
False  Pretences  of  their  Teachers  with  an  Appendix  ...  an  Account 
of  the  Bloody  Effects  of  Enthusiasm.  London,  1745. 

Henchman,  Nathaniel.  A  Letter  from  N H to  Rev.  Stephen  Chase, 

of  -  -  Giving  his  Reasons  for  Declining  to  Admit  the  Rev.  George 
Whitefield  into  his  Pulpit.  Boston,  1745. 

Hill,  Rowland.  A  Full  Answer  to  the  Rev.  J.  Wesley's  Remarks.  Bristol, 
1777. 

(Hill,  Rowland.)  A  review  of  All  the  Doctrines  Taught  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
John  Wesley  .  .  .  and  a  Farrago.  London,  1772. 

Kilham,  Alexander.  Methodist  Monitor  .  .  .  Containing  Appendix  of 
Trial.  (1796.)  Vol.  I. 

Kirby,  John.  The  Impostor  Detected  or;  the  Counterfeit  Saint  Turned  In- 
side Out.  London,  1750. 

Lavington,  Bishop  George.  Enthusiasm  of  Methodists  and  Papists  Com- 
pared. London,  1820.  This  is  a  reprint  of  an  earlier  edition.  493  pages. 

Lefroy,  Christopher  Edward.  Are  these  Things  So,  or,  Some  Quotations 
and  Remarks  in  Defense  of  What  the  World  Calls  Methodism.  Lon- 
don, 1809. 

(Anon.)  A  Letter  from  a  Clergyman  to  One  of  His  Parishioners  Who  was 
Inclined  to  Turn  Methodist.  London,  1753. 

London,  Bishop  of.  A  Caution  against  Enthusiasm.  Being  a  2nd  Part  of 
the  Late  .  .  .  Fourth  Pastoral  Letter.  London,  1751. 

(Longridge,  M.)  A  Conciliatory  Essay,  Addressed  to  the  Methodists,  in 
General.  Sunderland,  1795. 

Martin,  John.  Imposture  Detected,  or  Thoughts  on  a  Pretended  Prophet 
and  on  the  Prevalence  of  His  Impositions.  London,  1787. 

Mason.  William.  Methodism,  Displayed  and  Enthusiasm  Detected.  S.L. 
and  S.D. 

(M.  B.)  Some  General  Remarks  on  a  Late  Pamphlet  Entitled,  the  Enthusi- 
asm of  the  Methodists  and  Papists  Compared  in  a  Letter  to  a  Gentle- 
man. S.L.  Very  old. 

(Anon.)  The  Methodist  and  Mimick.  A  Tale  .  .  .  Inscribed  to  Samuel 
Foot,  Esq.  London,  1767. 

(Anon.)  The  Methodists  Dissected;  or  an  Impartial  Inquiry  into  the  Con- 
duct of  those  Arch  Methodists  G.  W.  and  C.  W.  Oxford,  S.D. 

(Anon.)  Methodism  and  Popery  Dissected  and  Compared  and  the  Doctrine 
of  Both  Proven  to  be  of  Pagan  Origin.  London,  1779. 

Moore,  Henry.  A  Reply  to  a  Pamphlet  Entitled  "Considerations  on  a  Sepa- 
ration of  the  Methodists  from  the  Established  Church."  Bristol,  1794. 


180     THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

Morgan,  J.  M.    Letter  to  the  Bishop  of  London.    London,  1830. 
Morgan,  Thomas.    Nature  and  Consequences  of  Enthusiasm.     London,  1719. 
(Anon.)     Observations  and  Remarks  on  Mr.  Seagrave's  Conduct  and  Writ- 
ings.   .     .     .    London,  1739. 
(Paul   and    Silas.)      An    Earnest  Address   to    the    Preachers   Assembled    in 

Conference.    .    .    .    S.L.  1795. 
Perronet,  Vincent.    A  Third  Letter  to  the  Author  of  a  Piece,  Entitled,  the 

Enthusiasm  of  Methodists  and  Papists  Compared.     London,  1752. 
(Anon.)     A  Plain  Address  to  the  Followers  and  Favorers  of  the  Methodists. 

London,  S.D.  and  S.L. 
Priestly,  Joseph.     Original  Letters  by  Rev.  John  Wesley  and  His  Friends. 

.    .    .     Birmingham,  1791. 
(  )      Primitive   Methodism   Defended.     Address    from   Trustees   of 

Broadmead  and  Guinea  Street  Chapels  in  Bristol.    .    .    .    Bristol,  1795. 
(Anon.)      The   Principles   and   Practices   of   the   Methodists    Considered    in 

Some  Letters  to  the  Leaders  of  that  Sect.     The  First  Address  to  Rev. 

Mr.    [Berridge]    wherein  are   Some  Remarks  on  his   Two  Letters  to  a 

Clergyman  in  Nottinghamshire,  Lately  Published.     London,  1761. 
(Anon.)     The  Question,  Whether  it  be  Right  to  Turn  Methodist  Considered 

in  a  Dialogue  between  Two  Members  of  the  Church  of  England.     Lon- 
don, 1745. 

Rhodes,  Benjamin.    The  Point  Stated   .    .    .    and  a  Short  Plan  of  Reconcilia- 
tion Proposed.    .     .     .    Birmingham,  1795. 
Rimus,  Henry.    A  Candid  Narrative  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Herren- 

huters  Commonly  Called  Moravians.    .     .     .    London,  1753. 
Roe,  Samuel.    Enthusiasm  Detected,  Defeated    .    .    .    Cambridge,  1768. 
(Anon.)     A  Serious  and  Affectionate  Address  to  the  Members  of  the  Church 

of   England   on   their   Falling   Away    from   her   Articles    and   Homilies. 

London,  1757. 

(Shaver,  The)      Priestcraft  Defended.     A   Sermon  Occasioned  by  the  Ex- 
pulsion of   Six  Young  Gentlemen   from  Oxford   for   Praying,   Reading 

and  Expounding  Scriptures.     London,  1768. 
(  )     A  Short  Account  of  the  Late  Rev.  J.  Wesley,  A.M.,  During  the 

Last  Two  Weeks  of  His   Life  Collected   from   Persons  who  Attended 

Him  During  that  Time.    London,  1791. 
Simpson,  David.     The  Happiness  of  Dying  in  the  Lord;  with  an  Apology 

for  the  Methodists.    .     .    .    Manchester,  1784. 
Smith,   Haddon.     Methodistical   Deceit :    a   Sermon    Preached   in   the   Parish 

Church  of  St.  Matthew    .     .     .    Middlesex  on  the  29th  of  April,  1770. 

London,  1770. 
Snell,  John.    The  Substance  of  a  Sermon  Preached  the  2oth  Day  of  August 

1775  in  the  Parish  of  North-Tawton.     London,   (1776). 
Stebbing,  Henry.    Caution  against  Religious  Delusion.     S.L.     1739. 
Sutcliffe,  Joseph.     Christian  Liberty:  or  Consideration  on  the  Propriety  of 

the  Methodists  having  the  Lord's  Supper  in  their  own  Chapels.     Bristol, 

1795- 
Taylor,   Thomas.     A   Defense   of   the   Methodists   who   do   not  Attend   the 

National  Church,  but  Avail  Themselves  of  Liberty  of  Conscience.    Liver- 
pool, 1792. 
(Tillotson,   John.)— Archbishop   of   Canterbury.     A   Persuasive   to   Frequent 

Communion.     S.L.  and  S.D. 
Toplady,  A.  M.    More  Work  for  Mr.  John  Wesley;  or  a  Vindication  of  the 

Decrees  and  Providence  of  God.    .     .    .    London,  1772. 
Toplady,   Augustus.     An   Old   Fox   Tarr'd   and   Feathered;    Occasioned   by 

what  is  Called  Mr.  Wesley's  Calm  Address.    .     .     .     London,  1775. 
Tottie,  John.     Two  Charges  to  the  Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of  Worcester  in 

the  Years  1763-1766.     Oxford,  1766. 
(Anon.)      The   True    Spirit   of    the    Methodists   and    their   Allies.     .     .     . 

London,  1740. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  181 

Trustees  of  Broadmead  Chapel,  Bristol.  Primitive  Methodism  Defended  in 
an  Address  from  the  Trustees  of  Broadmead  and  Guinea  Chapels  in 
Bristol.  Bristol,  (1795). 

Tucker,    Josiah.     Brief    History    of   the    Principles    of    Methodism.     . 
Oxford,  1742. 

Tucker,  Josiah.  A  Complete  Account  of  the  Conduct  of  the  Eminent  En- 
thusiast, Mr.  Whitefield.  London,  1739. 

(Tucker,  Josiah.)  Genuine  and  Secret  Memoirs  Relating  to  the  Life  and 
Adventures  of  that  Arch-Methodist  George  Whitefield.  Oxford,  1742. 

Wainewright,  Latham.  Observations  on  the  Doctrine,  Discipline  and  Manners 
of  the  Wesleyan  Methodists  and  also  of  the  Evangelical  Party.  .  .  . 
London,  1818. 

Warburton,  William.     Tracts  by .    London,  1789. 

Warren,  Samuel.     Chronicles  of  Methodism.    .     .     .    London,  1827.     Vol.  i. 

Watts,  Isaac.  An  Humble  Attempt  toward  the  Revival  of  Practical  Reli- 
gion among  Christians.  .  .  .  London,  1731. 

Wesley,  Charles.  Facsimile  Ms.  Letter  to  Dr.  Chandler.  London,  April, 
28,  1785. 

(Wesleyan  Methodist).  Methodist  Error,  or  Friendly  Christian  Advice. 
Trenton,  N.  J.,  1819. 

Whitefield,  Rev.  George.  Expostulatory  Letter,  Addressed  to  Nicholas  Lewis, 
Count  Zinzendorff,  and  Lord  .  .  .  London,  1756. 

Whitefield,  George.  A  Continuation  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Whitefield's  Journal 
during  the  Time  he  was  Detained  in  England  by  the  Embargo.  London, 

1739- 
Whitefield,  Rev.   George.     Letter  to  the  Rev.   Dr.   Durell  Occasioned  by  a 

Late  Expulsion  of  Students  from  Edmund  Hall.    .    .     .     London,  1768. 
Whitefield,   Rev.    George.     Letter   to   the   President  and   Professors,   Tutors 

and   Hebrew   Instructor  of   Harvard   College     ...     in  Answer  to  a 

Testimony  Published  by  them  against  the  Rev.  George  Whitefield  and  his 

Conduct.     Boston,   1745. 
Whitefield,  Rev.  George.    Letter  to  Thomas  Church    ...    in  Answer  to  his 

Serious  Letter  to  George  Whitefield.     London,  1744. 
Whitefield,  George.    Observations  on  Some  Fatal  Mistakes  in  a  Book.    .    .    . 

The  Doctrine  of  Grace    ...    by  Dr.  William  Warburton,  Lord  Bishop 

of  Gloucester.    .     .     .    London,  1763. 
Whitefield,  George.     The  Rev.  Mr.  Whitefield's  Answer,  to  the  Bishop  of 

London's  Last  Pastoral  Letter.     London,  1739.    2nd  ed. 
Whitefield,  George.     Select  Collections  of  Letters.    .     .     .    Written  Intimate 

Friends  and  Persons  of  Distinction.    .    .    .    London,  1772.    3  vols. 
Whitefield,  George.     Sermons.     Bound  with  Memoirs  of  George  Whitefield, 

edited  by  John  Gillies,     q.v. 
Whitefield,  George.     The  Testimony  of  the  President,  Professors    ...    of 

Harvard  College  against    .    .    .    and  his  Conduct.    Boston,  1744. 
Whitehead,  John.     Discourse  at  the  Funeral  of  John  Wesley.     S.L.     1845. 
(Wills).    Remarks  on  Methodism.    London,  1813. 

WORKS  OF  JOHN  WESLEY 

Eayrs,  George.    Letters  of  John  Wesley.    New  York,  1915. 
Emory,  John.    Works  of  John  Wesley.    New  York,  1831.    Complete  in  7  vols. 
The  following  writings  of  Wesley  were  taken  from  this  publication  for 

use  in  this  thesis: 

An  Address  to  the  Clergy.    Athlone,  1756.    Vol.  vi,  pp.  217-236. 
Advice    to    the    People    Called    Methodists.      S.L.,    1745-      Vol.    v,    pp. 

249-254. 
Advice  to  the  People  Called  Methodists,  with  Regard  to   Dress.     S.L. 

and  S.D.    Vol.  vi,  pp.  545-553- 

An  Answer  to  an  Important  Question.     1787.     Vol.  vn,  pp.  317-319- 
An  Answer  to  Mr.  Rowland  Hill's  Tract  Entitled  "Imposture  Detected. 
London,  1777.    Vol.  vi,  pp.  193-199- 


1 82     THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

The  Case  of  the  Birstal  House.    London,  1788.    Vol.  vii,  pp.  326-329. 
The  Case  of  the  Dewsbury  House.    Bristol,  1789.    Vol.  vii,  pp.  329-330. 
The  Character  of  the  Methodist.   .    .    .    Bristol,  1743.    Vol.  v,  pp.  240-245. 
A  Collection  of  Forms  of  Prayer  for  Every  Day  in  the  Week.     1733. 

Vol.  vi,  pp.  377-426. 
Directions    Concerning   Pronunciation   and   Gesture.     Vol.   vii,   pp.   487- 

493- 

Directions  Given  to  the  Band  Societies.  1744.    Vol.  v,  pp.  193-194- 
Directions  to  the  Stewards  of  the  Methodist  Society  in  London.     1747. 

Vol.  vii,  pp.  486-487. 

The  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin.    Bristol,  1757.    Vol.  v,  pp.  492-669. 
An  Estimate  of  the  Manners  of  the  Present  Times.     1782.     vol.  vi,  pp. 

347-352 

An  Extract  from :  A  Short  View  of  the  Difference  between  the  Mora- 
vian Brethren  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  and  Charles  Wesley.  Vol. 

vi,  pp.  22-24. 
An  Extract  of  a  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Law.     London,  1756.     Vol.  v, 

pp.  669-699. 
Farther  Thoughts  on  Separation  from  the  Church.     London,  1789.     Vol. 

vii,  pp.   325-326. 

A  Letter  to  a  Clergyman.    Bristol,  1766.    Vol.  v,  pp.  349-352. 
A  Letter  to  a  Friend.     1761.    Vol.  vii,  p.  299. 
A  Letter  to  a  Friend  Concerning  Tea.     Newington,  1748.     Vol.  vi,  pp. 

567-575- 
A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Baily    ...    in  Answer  to  a  Letter  to  a  Letter. 

.    .    .    London,  1750.    Vol.  v,  pp.  407-423. 
A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Conyers  Middleton,  Occasioned  by  his  Late  Free 

Inquiry,  Bristol,  1749.    Vol.  v,  pp.  705-761. 

A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Downes.    London,  1759.    Vol.  v,  pp.  428-437. 
A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Fleury.    Dublin,  1771.    Vol.  v,  pp.  484-491. 
A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Free.    Bristol,  1758.    Vol.  v,  pp.  352-354. 
A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Home:  Occasioned  by  his  Sermon  Preached 

before  the  University  of  Oxford.    London,  1762.    Vol.  v,  pp.  438-442. 
A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  John  Taylor.    Hartlepool,  1759.    Vol.  v,  p.  669. 
A  Letter  to  the  Rt.  Rev.  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London ;  Occasioned  by  his 

Lordship's  Late  Charge  to  his  Clergy.     London,   1747.     Vol.  v,  pp. 

339-349- 

A  Letter  to  Mr.  T.  H.,  alias  Philodemos,  alias  Somebody.  .  .  .  Vol.  vii, 
pp.  400-403- 

A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Potter.    London,  1758.    Vol.  y,  pp.  423-427. 

A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Toogood,  of  Exeter ;  Occasioned  by  his  "Dis- 
sent from  the  Church  of  England  Fully  Justified."  Bristol,  1758. 
Vol.  vi,  pp.  231-234. 

The  Nature,  Design,  and  General  Rules  of  the  United  Societies.  .  .  . 
1743.  Vol.  v,  pp.  190-192. 

The  Principles  of  a  Methodist  Occasioned  by  a  Late  Pamphlet,  entitled 
"A  Brief  History  of  the  Principles  of  Methodism."  Vol.  v,  pp. 
251-264. 

The  Principles  of  a  Methodist  Farther  Explained  Occasioned  by  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Church's  Second  Letter  to  Mr.  Wesley.  London,  1746. 
Vol.  v,  pp.  292-328. 

,      To  the  Printer  of  the  Dublin   Chronicle.     Londonderry,  June  2,    1789. 
Vol.  vii,  pp.  222-224. 

Reasons  Against  Separation  from  the  Church  of  England.  1758.  Vol. 
vii,  pp.  293-298. 

Rules  of  the  Band  Societies.    1738.    Vol.  v,  pp.  192-193. 

Of  Separation  from  the  Church.    1785.    Vol.  vii,  pp.  313-315. 

A  Second  Letter  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter,  in  Answer  to  his  Lord- 
ship's Later  Letter.  London,  1752.  Vol.  v,  pp.  405-407. 


FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  183 

A  Short  Account  of  the  Life  and  Death  of  the  Rev.  John  Fletcher.    1786. 

Vol.  vi,  pp.  427-483- 
A   Short  Address   to  the  Inhabitants  of   Ireland   Occasioned  by   Some 

Late  Occurrences.     Dublin,  1749.    Vol.  v,  p.  480-484. 
A  Short  History  of  Methodism.     (1764.)     Vol.  v,  pp.  246-248. 
Some  Thoughts  upon  an  Important  Question.    1781.    Vol.  vii,  p.  306. 
Specimen    of    the    Divinity   and    Philosophy   of    the    Highly-Illuminated 

Jacob  Behmen.     S.L.  and  S.D.     Vol.  v,  pp.  703-705. 
Thoughts  on  the  Consecration  of  Churches  and  Burial  Grounds.    Dum- 
fries, 1788.     Vol.  vi,  pp.  236-237. 

Thoughts  on  Separation  from  the  Church.    Bristol,  1788.    Vol.  vii,  p.  319. 
Thoughts  Upon  a  Late  Phenomenon.     Nottingham,  1788.     Vol.  vii,  pp. 

319-321. 

A  Word  to  Whom  it  May  Concern.    London,  1790.    Vol.  vii,  p.  332. 
Wesley,  John.    An  Answer  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Churche's  Remarks  on  the  Rev. 

John  Wesley's  Journal,  in  a  Letter  to  that  Gentleman.     Bristol,  1745. 
Wesley,  John.     A  Blow  at  the  Root;  or  Christ  Stabbed  in  the  House  of 

His  Friends.     Bristol,  1762.    2nd  ed. 

Wesley,  John.     Calm  Address  to  Our  American  Colonies.     Dublin,  1775. 
Wesley,  John.    A  Calm  Address  to  Our  American  Colonies.    A  new  edition, 
corrected  and  enlarged.     London,   1775. 
The  Christian  Sacrament  and  Sacrifice.     Extracted  from  a  late  author 

by    .    .    .    London,  1794. 

A  Compassionate  Address  to  the  Inhabitants  of  Ireland.     Belfast,  1778. 
Deed  of  Declaration.     (In  Appendix  B,  p.  551,  Townsend's  History  of 

Methodism  q.v.) 

Duty  of  Constant  Communion.     New  York,  1788. 
An  Earnest  Appeal  to  Men  of  Reason  and  Religion.  Newcastle  on  Tyne, 

1743- 
(Wesley,  John.)     An  Earnest  Invitation  to  the  Friends  of  the  Established 

Church  to  Join    ...    in  Setting  apart  One  Hour  of  Every  Week,  for 

Prayer  and  Supplication,  during  the  Present  Troublous  Times.     London, 

1779. 

Wesley,  John.    An  Extract  of  Mr.  Richard  Baxter's  Aphorisms  of  Justifica- 
tion.    London,  1784. 

A  Farther  Appeal  to  Men  of  Reason  and  Religion.    London,  1745. 

Free  Thoughts  on  the  Present  State  of  Affairs.    In  a  Letter  to  a  Friend. 
London,  1770. 

The  Heart  of  John  Wesley's  Journal,  with  an   Introduction  by  Hugh 

Price  Hughes.    .    .    .    New  York,  1903. 
(Wesley,  John  and  Charles.)     Hymns  for  the  Nativity  of  our  Lord.    Bristol, 

I75O. 

Wesley,  John  and  Charles.     Hymns  for  the  Year  1756.     Bristol,  1756. 
Wesley,  John.    The  Journal  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  London,  1907.    4  vols. 

The  Journal  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley.    .     .     .    New  York,  1909.     Com- 
plete in  8  vols.    The  Best  and  most  useful  to  date. 

A  Letter  to  the  Author  of  the  Craftsman.    .    .    .    London,  1745. 

A  Letter  to  the  Author  of  Enthusiasm  of  Methodists  and  Papists  Com- 
pared.    London,  1749-50. 

A  Letter  to  the  Bishops  of  London:  Occasioned  by  His  Lordship's  Late 
Charge  to  his  Clergy.     Bristol,  1749. 

Letter  to  Lord  Bishop  of  Gloucester.    London,  1763. 

A   Letter   to   a   Person   Lately   Joined   with   the   Call'd   Quakers.     S.L. 
1748. 

A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Law :  Occasioned  by  Some  of  his  Late  Writ- 
ings.    London,  1756. 

The  Miscellanous  Works  of    ...    New  York,  1828.    3  vols. 

Nicodemus:  or  a  Treatise  on  the  Fear  of  Man.    Written  in  German  by 
Augustus  Herman  Francke,  Abridged  by    ...    London,  1798. 

A  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection.    New  York,  1837. 


1 84     THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  METHODISTS 

A  Plain  Account  of  the  People  Called  Methodists  in  a  Letter  to  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Perronet.     London,  1755. 

Predestination  Calmly  Considered.     London,  1797. 

A  Preservative  against  Unsettled  Notions  in  Religion.    Bristol,  1770. 

Reflections  Upon  the  Conduct  of  Human  Life ;  with  Reference  to  Learn- 
ing and  Knowledge.     Extracted  by    ...    London,  1798. 

The    Scripture   Doctrine    Concerning    Predestination,    Election. 
S.L.  and  S.D. 

Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestination,  Election  and  Reprobation  also  the 
Nature  and  Extent  of  the  Atonement.    New  York,  1813. 

A  Second  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Free.    Bristol,  1758. 

Sermons,  Chiefly  on  the  Spiritual  Life.     New  York,   1871.     Edited  by 
Abel  Stevens. 

Sermons  on  Several  Occasions.     Devon,  1826. 

Sermons  on  Several  Occasions.     New  York,  1830.    2  vols. 

A  Short  Exposition  of  the  Ten  Commandments  Extracted  from  Bishop 
Hopkins  by    ...    London,  1799. 

A  Short  History  of  Methodism.    London,  1765. 

Short  View  of  the  Difference  Between  the  Moravian  Brethren.     Lon- 
don, 1745. 

Some  Observations  on  Liberty  Occasioned  by  a  Late  Tract.     London, 
1776. 

Some  Remarks  Upon  Mr.  Hill's  Review  of  all  the  Doctrines  Taught  by 
Mr.  John  Wesley.    Bristol,  1772. 

Some  Remarks  Upon  Mr.  Hill's  Farrago  Double-Distilled.    Bristol,  1773. 

The  Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists  in  the  United  States  of  America 
with  Other  Occasional  Services.     London,  1790. 

Thoughts  Upon  Necessity.     London,  1775. 

A    Treatise   on    Christian    Prudence.      Extracted    from    Mr.    Morrs    by 
.    .    .    London,  1784.    4th  ed. 

A  Word  in  Season :  or  Advice  to  an  Englishman.    S.L.  and  S.D.    7th  ed. 

The  Works  of  John  Wesley.    New  York,  1826.    10  vols. 


VITA 

ROBERT  LEONARD  TUCKER  was  born  in  Westfield,  Massa- 
chusetts, January  28,  1890.  After  graduating  from  the  high 
school  of  that  place  in  1909,  he  entered  Wesleyan  University  of 
Middletown,  Connecticut,  from  which  he  received  the  degree  of 
B.A.,  in  1913.  In  1915  he  received  the  degree  of  Master  of 
Arts  from  Columbia  University.  In  1916  he  graduated  from 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  of  New  York  City  after  complet- 
ing three  years  of  study.  It  was  from  1915-1918  that  he  was  a 
candidate  in  Columbia  University  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of 
Philosophy.  He  is  an  ordained  minister  in  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


DEC  1- 


DEC  16 '66  4  PM 

LOAN 


IECTD 


-jo 


LD  21A-60m-7,'66 
(G4427slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


YC  467, 


